Forking for Freedom: Why Open Source Needs Its Rebels
In the world of open-source software, the concept of “freedom” runs deeper than code, stretching into philosophy, community, and values. At its core, OSS is celebrated as “free as in freedom” a commitment not only to transparency and accessibility but to user autonomy and communal contribution. However, some open-source projects have been steering away from this ethos, adopting licenses like the Business Source License (BSL), which add a level of restriction on what users and companies can do with the software. While these licenses protect creators and their intellectual property, they often leave behind the OSS purists, prompting a wave of “rebels” who fork projects to maintain the philosophical purity of free software.
The phenomenon of forking taking the source code of a project and developing it independently might appear as a rebellion against established projects, but in a larger sense, it is often an act of preservation. By dissecting the necessity of these forks, the tech involved, and the implications for OSS, we explore why open source, at times, needs its rebels to safeguard its original mission.
The Case of Forking: A Balance of Philosophy and Pragmatism
Forking can be seen as both an act of defiance and a practical solution to diverging interests. When Oracle acquired MySQL in 2010, the database community grew concerned. Many felt that MySQL, the popular relational database system, would become another corporate asset with proprietary leanings, contradicting the very spirit of open-source. The response was MariaDB — a fork championed by MySQL’s original developers, who aimed to preserve MySQL’s open-source roots while allowing the project to grow on its own terms. The community’s response was immediate and overwhelmingly positive, and MariaDB quickly gained traction as a bastion of OSS philosophy.
Similarly, the relationship between Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice showcases the delicate relationship of collaboration and divergence in OSS. While both projects serve as free, open-source office suites, LibreOffice emerged as a fork with the intent of advancing faster and more openly than OpenOffice, leading to improved functionality and a strong community base.
The Constraints of BSL, “The Bull Sh**t Licence”
The introduction of licenses like the BSL, or the Business Source License attempts to address the imbalance between OSS creators and large corporations that profit from free software without contributing back. Cloud giants like AWS and Google have famously taken popular open-source projects, modified them, and sold them as part of their cloud services. MongoDB, Elasticsearch, and Redis all faced this issue, where their developers saw major tech companies gaining from their work without the same commitment to contributing resources or code back to the original project.
To counter this, companies introduced BSL and similar licenses, which limit certain kinds of use by third parties, particularly commercial cloud services. The intent is to protect the project from exploitation and create a sustainable revenue model for developers. In a practical sense, BSL allows creators to maintain a degree of control over their work, protecting the project’s commercial value. But in the philosophical realm of OSS, these restrictive licenses spark debate, as they fall short of the ideals of “free as in freedom.”
The “freedom” in OSS is not merely about zero-cost software; it’s about the right to modify, distribute, and innovate without undue restriction even for commercial uses. BSL projects thus sit in a gray area, where they are technically open-source but no longer universally free. This shift sometimes leads developers to fork the project to restore the original openness, as seen with projects like OpenSearch, a community-driven fork of Elasticsearch. By creating OpenSearch, the open-source community reclaimed Elasticsearch from the perceived limitations of BSL, aiming to make it more accessible and fully in line with OSS principles.
Forking as a Catalyst for Innovation and Independence
Beyond its roots in rebellion, forking also serves as a practical mechanism for innovation. When a community diverges in its goals, a fork can push new features, optimizations, and design choices without the constraints of the original project’s roadmap. It provides a space for experimentation, where alternative visions of a project can flourish.
An example in recent years is Terraform. Originally open-source under HashiCorp, Terraform became immensely popular as an infrastructure-as-code tool, enabling developers to automate cloud infrastructure management. When HashiCorp recently switched to a more restrictive license, debates about its commitment to open-source values sparked. In response, the community began exploring Terraform forks, aiming to continue developing an open alternative that better aligned with the OSS ethos.
The Rebel Alliance
In the end, forking is a powerful testament to the freedom at the heart of OSS. It serves as a safeguard against monopolization, ensuring that no one entity can dictate the direction of a project unilaterally. The OSS ecosystem relies on this balancing force, where the community retains the ability to correct course by forging a new path when necessary.
But the act of forking should be undertaken with purpose and respect for the broader ecosystem. Each fork should ask: Are we adding value? Are we preserving something meaningful? Are we building something better? When driven by these motivations, forking transcends its rebellious image and becomes a constructive force, offering alternatives that uphold the principles of open-source.
In many ways, OSS needs its rebels. With them, the community can stay energized, bend to corporate interests, and maintain its commitment to universal access. Forking is not a betrayal of open source; it is its safeguard, its ability to evolve, resist, and adapt. The rebels of OSS remind us that the freedom to innovate, improve, and even dissent lies at the very core of open-source philosophy. And in this way, they ensure that open-source remains not just free to use, but free to be free.