Why transparency alone doesn't make software truly open: a deep dive

Transparency is one of the most appealing parts of modern software development. When a company says its product is “open” or that the source code is available, many people assume that means open-source. It’s an easy mistake to make, since all three terms imply that the code is visible. The problem is that visibility alone doesn’t equal freedom, and that’s where the distinction truly lies.

Transparency is valuable, but freedom is essential.

The line between open-source and source-available software has blurred over time. Marketing teams often use both terms interchangeably, even though the philosophy and licensing behind them are very different. It’s not just a technical argument or a matter of wording. This difference has real-world implications for users, developers, and the entire open-source community.

Why the difference between 'open source' and 'source available' matters

Freedom, not just visibility, defines open-source

Open-source software is more than a chance to peek at the code. It’s a legal and ethical framework that gives users the right to use, modify, and redistribute software freely. Licenses like the GNU General Public License (GPL) or MIT codify those freedoms so that anyone can build on existing work. This is what makes open-source robust and resilient, even decades after a project’s launch.

There are many open-source licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), but these are the most common. Others include:

Source-available software doesn’t offer that same flexibility. The source code might be viewable, but the license restricts what you can do with it. Some developers adopt this approach to protect their business interests while still appearing transparent. Users can learn from the code, but often can’t modify or redistribute it, which limits community innovation and long-term sustainability.

The distinction matters because it affects control. With open-source, users have agency to fix bugs, add features, or fork a project if needed. With source-available code, development depends entirely on the original author’s choices. That dependency runs counter to the collaborative ideals that make open-source ecosystems thrive.

How companies blur the lines

Marketing buzz versus community principles

The term “open” has become a marketing magnet. Companies use it to create the impression of transparency and community involvement. Yet when you read the fine print, the license often restricts commercial use or forbids derivative works. Those limitations mean the software no longer qualifies as open-source under the Open Source Initiative’s definition.

Sometimes, this confusion comes from good intentions rather than manipulation. A developer might release code under a restrictive license simply to prevent misuse while still wanting to share knowledge. However, those restrictions still matter. The result is software that looks open at first glance but is closed in practice, which misleads users about their actual rights.

This blending of language erodes trust over time. Users come to expect openness and flexibility, only to find barriers when they try to contribute or self-host. Each misuse of the “open” label makes it harder to distinguish genuine community-driven projects from those using openness as a sales pitch. Clarity in licensing keeps that trust intact.

Real-world examples of 'source available'

When visibility replaces genuine openness

Several high-profile projects have recently reignited the discussion about what “open” really means. One of the most talked-about examples is Meta’s Llama large language model. While Meta released the code and model weights for research, its license prohibits commercial use. That restriction alone means Lllama isn’t open-source, despite widespread references to it as such in media and marketing.

Another example is Elastic, the company behind Elasticsearch. After years of operating under an open-source license, Elastic switched to a source-available model that forbids certain types of redistribution. The company made this change to protect against cloud providers offering Elasticsearch as a hosted service without contributing back. The move sparked intense debate about whether “open” projects can remain sustainable without being fully free. Ultimately, Elasticsearch returned to the open-source world, adding the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) to the available licensing options for the software.

Redis, once a flagship of open-source databases, followed a similar path. Its license now limits commercial use to protect the company’s interests. While understandable from a business standpoint, these changes illustrate how quickly open projects can become restricted when corporate priorities shift. For users and developers, the result is the same: less freedom and more confusion about what “open” really means. In the end, just like Elasticsearch, Redis adopted the AGPL, bringing the software fully back in line with open-source licensing.

How to tell the difference

Licenses reveal what “open” really means

If you want to know whether something is truly open-source, the license tells the story. OSI-approved licenses such as GPLv3, MIT, or Apache 2.0 allow unrestricted use, modification, and redistribution. Any license that adds caveats, like prohibiting commercial use, disqualifies it from being open-source. It may still be source-available, but it doesn’t carry the same freedoms.

You can also tell a lot by observing community behavior. True open-source projects encourage collaboration through pull requests, issue tracking, and forking. Source-available projects often limit contributions and reserve decision-making power for the original creator. This structural difference reveals the project’s true nature more clearly than a marketing tagline ever could.

Understanding those distinctions helps users make better choices. Supporting true open-source projects means supporting collective progress and longevity. By contrast, supporting source-available software often benefits a single organization. Both models have value, but one fosters independence while the other maintains control.

Why this distinction protects the community

Freedom is what keeps open-source alive

Every time a company markets restricted code as open-source, it weakens the term’s meaning. The open-source movement depends on shared ownership and accountability. Diluting that label with projects that limit user rights damages the credibility of genuine open initiatives. Over time, this can lead to fewer contributors, less innovation, and more proprietary fragmentation.

Real open-source projects succeed because no single entity owns them. Anyone can pick up abandoned code and breathe new life into it. That level of resilience is what has allowed software like Linux, VLC, and Blender to outlive their original creators. Source-available models don’t offer that guarantee, and once the controlling company loses interest, the project often fades away.

Protecting the meaning of “open-source” is about more than technical purity. It ensures that the freedoms promised to users remain intact for future generations of developers. Upholding those principles keeps the software world diverse, adaptable, and community-driven.

What developers and users should take away

Both models have legitimate places in the software landscape. Developers may choose source-available licenses to protect business interests or intellectual property. That’s a valid decision as long as it’s presented honestly. Calling restricted software “open-source” is what crosses the line and confuses users who expect freedom, not just visibility.

Restrictions still matter, no matter how good the intentions.

Users, in turn, can safeguard their own interests by checking licenses carefully. When you support open-source projects, you’re contributing to a shared pool of innovation that benefits everyone. When you use source-available software, you’re trusting a single entity to keep the project alive. Knowing which you’re choosing makes all the difference.

Understanding that open-source and source-available software aren’t the same helps preserve what makes the open-source movement special. Transparency is valuable, but freedom is essential. By supporting projects that uphold true open-source principles, users and developers ensure a future where collaboration remains at the heart of progress.