As the modern software ecosystem continues to evolve, open-source is poised to become the foundation upon which innovative applications are built; yet, companies capitalizing on open-source software must balance the needs of their internal teams with the imperative to prevent exploitation by third-party developers who may misuse the permissions granted under the license.
Numerous corporations have touted ambitious open-source initiatives, only to hastily retreat when the harsh realities of the commercial landscape set in. Firms prioritize fortifying their defenses, primarily catering to the needs of customers (individuals or businesses) seeking satisfaction.
While managing such changes might prove challenging, it is crucial to monitor these alterations, as well as identifying individuals who have abandoned open-source initiatives altogether and those seeking refuge under less permissive yet still open-source licenses – a trend observed in the industry over the past few years.
TechCrunch has assembled a timeline of open-source companies that have shifted their focus over the past decade.
Movable Kind (2013)
Launched an open-source model (MTOS) of its internet publishing software under a “copyleft” open-source license, a move that aligned it more closely with WordPress. Afford certain freedoms; nonetheless, mandate that every derivative work is released under a similar license. Ultimately, the transfer persisted until 2013, when Movable Ink terminated its open-source product, citing concerns that it hindered the adoption of their business models.
“The company has not experienced significant growth due to MTOS, nor have we seen notable increases in obtain numbers compared to our paid variations of Movable Type, which suggests it doesn’t make financial sense to continue developing and distributing something that’s failing to garner meaningful traction.”
SugarCRM (2014)
In 2004, the buyer relationship administration (CRM) software program pioneer announced a strategic shift, as it would no longer offer an open-source “community edition” for its group version. This decision was made after careful consideration of its two core target markets: developers and first-time CRM users seeking an affordable solution.
The corporation continued supporting the v6.5 model of its open-source software for an additional four years before ultimately discontinuing maintenance.
Redis (2018)
Since 2018, Redis Labs, the company behind the popular in-memory database Redis, has been gradually distancing itself from its open-source origins. This shift began with the introduction of “Redis Modules” from an open-source license to Apache 2.0 with a clarifying addendum. business restrictions). Redis transformed its licensing model, replacing the Commons Clause with its own Redis Supply Available License (), which aimed to preserve certain freedoms while imposing notable restrictions on competitive database providers, such as those offered by companies like Amazon Web Services.
The controversy surrounding Amazon’s business practices served as an early harbinger of future events, with various corporations subsequently citing the “Amazon drawback” as a reason for revamping their licensing agreements. In February, Redis sparked controversy by announcing a significant shift in its licensing model, transitioning away from an open-source only approach. The company revealed plans to adopt a dual-licensing strategy, offering both the Redis Source Available License (RSAL) and a Server Side Public License (SSPL). This move marked a departure from Redis’ traditional commitment to open-source software.
MongoDB (2018)
In 2018, MongoDB transitioned its open-source license from the Affero General Public License (AGPL) to the Server Side Public License (SSPL). The rationale? To prevent cloud giants like AWS from offering their own branded version of this service without returning a share.
Confluent (2018)
The “year that was” for open-source license switching came to a close as an organization that offers high-end tools and services surrounding Apache Kafka, opting to transition several key components of its core platform from Apache 2.0 to proprietary licenses.
This licensing agreement contains a significant provision that bars competitors from offering Confluent’s products as a service.
Cockroach Labs (2019)
The creator behind the iconic franchise has persistently disrupted its approach to licensing agreements.
In 2019, the company’s founders decided to transition CockroachDB from the permissive Apache 2.0 license to an Enterprise Supply License, also known as the ESL. Once again, cloud hyperscalers like Amazon Web Services (AWS) have driven the transformation.
“As open-source software transforms into ‘as-a-service’ offerings, we’re observing a surge in extremely integrated suppliers that capitalize on their unique positioning to deliver exceptional user experiences via seamless integrations.”
In August, Cockroach Labs made another significant adjustment by offering its self-hosted product under a single enterprise license, aimed at encouraging larger organizations to purchase the specific features they require.
Sentry (2019)
The codebase behind the open-source project of the identical name was once available under a permissive license. In 2019, Busbud’s corporate venture arm, BUSL, responded to what its co-founder and CTO David Cramer described as “funded companies plagiarizing or copying our work” to directly compete with Sentry by taking a proactive approach.
Last year, China granted the Sentry Useful Supply License (), a simplified version of the Business Use Supply License (BUSL), but with fewer complexities. As of this year, Sentry is prioritizing “truthful supply,” a concept that TechCrunch described in 2022 as a bridge between open and proprietary worlds, characterized by new definitions, terminology, and governance models.
Elastic (2021)
In 2021, the company behind the popular enterprise search engine and visualization dashboard ceased operations after several years of successful innovation. The narrative surrounding AWS’s introduction of its managed Elasticsearch service in 2015 is a familiar tale, tracing back to that pivotal year when the cloud giant expanded its offerings.
Despite this, Elastic uniquely stands out as the sole corporation to have made a significant departure from the open-source community, only to return later. In August, Elastic shifted gears by introducing an AGPL (GNU Affero General Public License) licence, a significant departure from its prior use of the Apache 2.0 licence before 2021, while still maintaining openness in its software offerings.
HashiCorp (2023)
The open-source infrastructure provider deserted its ship last year, opting to transition its “infrastructure as code” software from a copyleft open-source license to the Business User and Subscriber License (BUSL).
The primary objective was to prevent certain distributors from profiting from Terraform without making a meaningful contribution back to the project.
A software fork called OpenTofu was created by third parties, valuing it at $6.4 billion.
Snowplow (2024)
The company, which helps corporations acquire behavioral information for AI purposes, has announced that it is now releasing its platform under an open source Apache 2.0 license to the community.
The driving force behind this decision was the need to fund Snowplow’s “thrilling expertise roadmap,” ensuring that users reaping its benefits share in the value. The revised license explicitly prohibits customers from leveraging Snowplow’s intellectual property to create a competitive product.
