Open Source Gets Complicated  ## Metadata - Author: [[Matt Asay]] - Full Title: Open Source Gets Complicated - Category: #articles - Document Note: --- tags: - #open-source - #ai-licensing - #wordpress - #linux - #geopolitics - #ospo - #compliance - #cloud - #funding - #governance Author: Matt Asay Source: Article Reference: https://search.app/x9PANbsHRtL8A3MJ9 date created: 2025-08-21 00:00 --- # Title: Open source gets complicated — notes and analysis ## Table of Contents: - [📌 Overview](#-overview) - [🧭 Pressure-testing the OSD](#-pressure-testing-the-osd) - [🌩️ Cloud, AGPL, and the limits of “source”](#-cloud-agpl-and-the-limits-of-source) - [🌐 Geopolitics meets governance: Linux maintainers and sanctions](#-geopolitics-meets-governance-linux-maintainers-and-sanctions) - [🧱 WordPress controversy: Automattic vs. WP Engine](#-wordpress-controversy-automattic-vs-wp-engine) - [🧩 Meta-point: Messiness as resilience](#-meta-point-messiness-as-resilience) - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#-notes) - [📖 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items (career-aligned prompt)](#-action-items-career-aligned-prompt) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical validity](#-logical-validity) - [🔍 DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🔍 SEO Evaluation](#-seo-evaluation) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### References: - RedMonk’s perspective on AI licensing complexity - Linux kernel mailing list note by Greg Kroah-Hartman - Coverage by Ivan Mehta on the WordPress dispute - Linux Foundation work on open definitions for AI and science ## 📝 Summary: The article argues that “open source” is confronting its most complex tests in AI, cloud services, and geopolitics. Traditional definitions like the Open Source Definition (OSD) strain under AI’s unique assets and service delivery models (similar to prior tensions that led to the AGPL). Recent events—sanctions-driven removal of some Linux maintainers and a high-profile WordPress legal dispute—illustrate how political, economic, and governance pressures complicate ideals. The piece concludes that open source persists not by purity but by pragmatic compromise, which has historically been its strength. ## 📖 Main Content: The author frames a turbulent week in open source as a stress test of both governance and ideology. AI challenges the OSD because models, data, and weights aren’t neatly analogous to “source code,” prompting influential voices (e.g., Steve O’Grady) to call for license complexity fit for AI’s reality. Cloud posed a similar problem earlier, culminating in the AGPL “kludge,” revealing ongoing misalignment between classic copyleft enforcement and service-based distribution. On geopolitics, the article covers the removal of around a dozen Linux maintainers due to sanctions compliance. While troubling on a personal level, it’s framed as evidence of Linux’s strategic importance: compliance burdens arise because the software matters in global supply chains. In the WordPress sphere, the Automattic vs. WP Engine dispute is portrayed as a case where blame is shared and the narrative is more nuanced than social media outrage suggests. The closing message urges readers to resist binary thinking: open source’s durability stems from its willingness to adapt through messy compromises. ### 🗒️ Notes - Scene-setting - “Tough week for open source” ties together AI licensing, chip wars, and geopolitics. - Nostalgia for simpler “open source vs. free software” days; recognizes that simplicity was always partial. - AI vs. OSD - AI isn’t equivalent to software: models, data, weights, evaluation pipelines differ from code artifacts. - Quote from Steve O’Grady underscores need for licensing complexity fitting AI assets. - Developers often ignore definitional debates to ship work, widening a practice-policy gap. - Cloud parallel - Earlier attempt to extend OSD ideals to SaaS led to AGPL; enforcement “teeth” weaker in service contexts. - Tension: ideals vs. practical enforceability when code is delivered as a service. - Governance and geopolitics - Linux maintainers removed over sanctions compliance (US, Taiwan, Norway, New Zealand referenced). - Greg Kroah-Hartman cites documentation requirements; reinstatement possible if compliant. - Micro-level harm vs. macro-level signal that Linux is critical infrastructure. - WordPress dispute - Social media reaction cast Automattic/Matt Mullenweg as aggressor. - Reporting (Ivan Mehta) suggests shared responsibility; situation is nuanced. - Meta conclusion - Open source thrives through compromise with “messy reality,” not purity. - The term “open source” itself was a pragmatic bridge to business—an irony the author notes. ## 📖 References: - “AI and source code are simply too different…” — Steve O’Grady (RedMonk) - Greg Kroah-Hartman’s message to the Linux kernel mailing list about compliance removals - Ivan Mehta’s coverage of Automattic vs. WP Engine developments - Linux Foundation initiatives on definitions for AI and open science ## 🗣️ Paraphrase: - Original idea: AI breaks traditional open source definitions; licensing must reflect AI’s distinct assets. - Paraphrase: Conventional open source rules don’t map cleanly onto AI because models, weights, and datasets don’t behave like source files. Leading voices now argue that AI needs purpose-built licensing frameworks that acknowledge these differences rather than forcing a software-era mold. - Original idea: Sanctions-related removal of Linux maintainers is painful yet signals importance. - Paraphrase: While it’s personally disruptive for those maintainers, the fact that compliance regimes reach into kernel governance shows how pivotal Linux has become in regulated, global technology ecosystems. ## 📰 Newsletter: This week in web and WordPress: Building the web means learning never stops. If you’re sharpening your HTML/CSS/JS chops, don’t miss MDN’s refreshed guides and the latest Core Web Vitals updates from Google—small performance wins add up. In WordPress-land, the community is buzzing over governance and sustainability: the Automattic vs. WP Engine dust-up reminds us that open source success depends on clear stewardship, transparent licensing, and healthy contributor ecosystems. New plugins to watch: performance-minded image optimizers embracing AVIF, and block-pattern libraries that speed up page builds without locking you in. For devs, double down on Git and GitHub skills—clean PRs and CI checks are your superpower. Want a primer? Start with GitHub’s “Learning Lab,” then try the official WordPress Plugin Handbook for best practices. Community shout-outs go to meetups piloting contributor onboarding workshops—if you can, host one locally and bring a friend. Sustainable open source is built by all of us, one merged PR at a time. ## ✅ Action Items (career-aligned prompt): Use this when analyzing any article: - Map to advocacy: Identify how the article’s arguments affect open-source sustainability (licensing, funding, governance). Extract 3–5 advocacy messages I can present on stage and in workshops. - Contributor engagement: Outline concrete practices for onboarding and retention (documentation, mentorship, contributor ladders) that respond to the article’s issues (e.g., compliance, licensing clarity). - Education strategy: Design a mini-curriculum (PHP/JS/Git/GitHub) tied to the article’s themes (e.g., license literacy for plugin devs; compliance checklists for maintainers). - OSPO readiness: Translate insights into OSPO policies: license selection, compliance workflows, contributor agreements, sanctions screening, and incident response. - WordPress ecosystem: Propose actions for transparency/inclusivity: public governance docs, dispute resolution playbooks, community office hours, DEIB-friendly contributor guides. - Funding and sustainability: Suggest mechanisms (sponsorship tiers, maintenance grants, bug bounties) aligned with the artic - Summary: Global politics, chip wars, and the ever-present confusion of managing AI source code. It’s been a tough week for open source. - URL: https://search.app/x9PANbsHRtL8A3MJ9 #### Global politics, chip wars, and the ever-present confusion of managing AI source code. It’s been a tough week for open source. Credit: Gutzemberg / Shutterstock Oh, for the days when “open source” was simply the business-friendly version of “free software.” When we could make believe that the [Open Source Definition](https://opensource.org/osd) (OSD) crafted for a world of packaged software shipped on CDs or other physical media would apply equally well to AI or cloud. When the categories of “us” and “them” were clear, and “them” always meant the bad guys. Wasn’t 2023 awesome? Of course, [open source](https://www.infoworld.com/article/3429076/what-is-open-source-software-open-source-and-foss-explained.html) has always been much more complicated than some would like to suppose. But this week that complexity exploded, revealing a roiling mess of geopolitics, chip wars, and, of course, AI messiness. Rather than a testament to the inherent weakness of facile understanding of open source, what is emerging from this mess is a reminder at how complicated yet resilient open source has been for decades. #### Pressure-testing the OSD [I’ve been arguing](https://www.infoworld.com/article/2335109/making-sure-open-source-doesn-t-fail-ai.html) for some time that AI breaks traditional definitions of open source, while pointing out that academic debates about The One True Definition of AI have largely been [ignored by developers](https://www.infoworld.com/article/3485382/ai-software-resists-open-source.html). They have work to do, after all. What’s new, however, is that some of the most thoughtful, vocal proponents of “open source AI” have, quite recently, acknowledged that “AI and source code are simply too different to be neatly managed side by side. The complexity of AI demands complexity of licensing.” That’s a quote from [RedMonk’s Steve O’Grad](https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2024/10/22/from-open-source-to-ai/)y, who is often right, and is definitely correct here. But his same logic extends beyond AI. When he argues that “AI is inarguably a fundamentally different asset than software alone,” he’s right, but the same thing should be said of cloud. For those who lived through the early attempts to apply the OSD—which was conceived to cover source code—to software services delivered over networks, you’ll remember how contentious and messy that process was. We ended up with a kludge called the Affero General Public License (AGPL) and then mostly tried to ignore the issue for the next decade or so. You can side with O’Grady that “a group of vendors and investors seeking to commercialize open source have attempted to blur that definition to the point of meaninglessness and irrelevance,” or you can recognize that the OSD for AI and cloud simply doesn’t live up to its original ideals. Free software in the shape of a robust GPL, for example, [doesn’t exist in cloud](https://www.infoworld.com/article/2336350/the-open-source-problem.html), precisely because the same “teeth” that existed for source code don’t exist for source code that is *sort of* delivered as a service. One can believe there are bad actors, as O’Grady seems to, and still think the OSD isn’t living up to its ideals for AI or cloud. But that’s just one messy area (one that the Linux Foundation is [trying to help resolve](https://lfaidata.foundation/blog/2024/10/25/embracing-the-future-of-ai-with-open-source-and-open-science-models/) with some new open source definitions for AI and science). #### Вы хотите писать программное обеспечение, да? Russia isn’t super well-loved in the United States or Western Europe right now, so perhaps it was just a matter of time before Russian software developers would get booted out of their roles as open source contributors to key projects. For example, roughly one dozen Linux maintainers were [relieved of their positions](https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/23/linus_torvalds_affirms_expulsion_of/) this past week. We’ve seen open source contributors lose their status for a variety of reasons on a project-by-project basis, but this is the first time I can remember a class of contributors expelled from a project due to nationality. Greg Kroah-Hartman, a key Linux kernel leader, notes in a [message to the Linux kernel mailing list](https://lore.kernel.org/all/2024101835-tiptop-blip-09ed@gregkh/), “Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements. They can come back in the future if sufficient documentation is provided.” That documentation comes down to proving they don’t work for entities that have been sanctioned by countries as varied as the US, Taiwan, Norway, and New Zealand. At least one maintainer is soon to be reinstated. Though messy and undoubtedly distressing to those affected, this is actually good turmoil. After all, it’s an indication that open source, generally, and Linux, specifically, matters. Roll back the clock even 10 years and the world was only starting to come to terms with open source’s importance thanks to security vulnerabilities like [Heartbleed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbleed). In the micro sense, this is a problem, but in the macro sense, it’s indicative of positive trends. #### Never meet your heroes On the not-so-positive side of the open source ledger is the whole [WordPress controversy](https://www.computerworld.com/article/3564788/about-that-brawl-between-the-wordpress-co-founder-and-wp-engine.html). I guess I follow people of a certain persuasion on X, because according to their commentary, Automattic CEO Matt Mullenweg had become evil incarnate overnight, launching an unprovoked legal broadside against WP Engine. Dig into the details a bit more, as [Ivan Mehta has](https://techcrunch.com/2024/10/20/wordpress-vs-wp-engine-drama-explained/), however, and it’s clear that there’s plenty of blame to go around. Perhaps this is a good place to stop (even without getting into the [Arm versus Qualcomm open standards battle](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-10-23/arm-to-cancel-qualcomm-chip-design-license-in-escalation-of-feud?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTcyOTc5NzM3OSwiZXhwIjoxNzMwNDAyMTc5LCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJTTFJOTzBUMVVNMFcwMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiJBOEZDQjFENURGRjU0OTQwOTQxRkQ0NUIzRDlFMTJCQiJ9.rySaC1wDrHWOzSKPfZK_qsQGlEjeMiNaeTW-WTwyG28)). If your view of the open source world is a pristine binary of right and wrong, you probably aren’t paying enough attention. Open source has endured precisely because of messy compromise due to messy reality. That is, after all, why we have the moniker “open source” in the first place: It was a way to placate business interests, which infuriated the binary-visioned free software purists. If you think about it, it is a delicious irony., Open Source Gets Complicated, Matt Asay, 01jbdb418spydcccy78tnf8qtt.