Open Source to Closed Doors: A Timeline of Companies That Switched

Introduction: The Shift from Open to Closed Source

Open source software has long been heralded as a revolutionary approach to technology development. Its transparency, community-driven collaboration, and accessibility have created a foundation for countless innovations. However, in recent years, a growing trend has emerged: companies abandoning open source in favor of closed source solutions. This shift raises questions about the trade-offs between open source and closed source models, as well as the implications for innovation and users.

While the motivations for transitioning from open to closed source vary—ranging from monetization to security concerns—the shift often leaves users and developers grappling with significant changes. In this article, we’ll explore a timeline of companies that made this transition, analyze their motivations, and examine the broader implications of such moves.

1. Understanding Open Source vs Closed Source

Before diving into the timeline, it’s essential to understand the fundamental differences between open source and closed source software models.

Open source software refers to programs whose source code is freely available for anyone to view, modify, and distribute. Popular examples include Linux, WordPress, and Apache. This model thrives on collaboration, enabling developers worldwide to contribute to projects, fix bugs, and innovate together. It embodies transparency and community engagement.

In contrast, closed source software—often referred to as proprietary software—restricts access to its source code. Companies retain exclusive rights to their software, preventing users from modifying or redistributing it. While this approach can enhance security and control, it also limits user autonomy and transparency. Prominent examples include Microsoft Windows and Adobe Creative Suite.

2. A Brief History of Open Source

The open source movement began in the late 20th century, driven by a desire to democratize software development. Projects like GNU and the Linux kernel laid the foundation for open source as a viable alternative to proprietary models.

The 1990s and early 2000s saw open source gain mainstream traction. Companies like Red Hat built successful business models around open source software, while others, such as Sun Microsystems, embraced the philosophy by open-sourcing Java. This era marked a high point for open source—a time when collaboration and openness seemed poised to dominate the tech landscape.

However, as open source projects matured and attracted larger user bases, challenges began to emerge. The need for sustainable revenue models, growing cybersecurity threats, and competition with proprietary software forced many companies to reconsider their commitment to open source.

3. Notable Companies That Transitioned from Open to Closed Source

MongoDB: Licensing Changes and Proprietary Moves

MongoDB, a popular open source NoSQL database, made headlines in 2018 when it changed its licensing model from AGPL to the Server Side Public License (SSPL). This move aimed to prevent large cloud providers from offering MongoDB as a service without contributing back to the community. However, the SSPL’s restrictions6 led to MongoDB’s removal from many open source repositories, effectively marking its shift toward closed source.

While MongoDB justified this decision as necessary for protecting its business model, critics argued that it undermined the principles of open source. The move sparked debates about the fine line between safeguarding intellectual property and abandoning open source ideals.

Elastic: From Open Source to Proprietary Licensing

Elastic, the company behind Elasticsearch, followed a similar path in 2021 by changing its licensing model to prevent unauthorized use by cloud providers. This decision transitioned Elasticsearch and Kibana from open source to a proprietary model. Elastic’s CEO argued that the move was essential for sustaining innovation and protecting their business.

However, like MongoDB, Elastic’s decision faced backlash from the open source community. Forks of Elasticsearch, such as OpenSearch, emerged as alternatives, highlighting the resilience of open source even in the face of proprietary shifts.

4. Motivations Behind the Shift from Open to Closed Source

Revenue Generation

One of the primary reasons companies abandon open source is to create sustainable revenue streams. Open source projects often struggle to monetize effectively, leading businesses to adopt closed source models that enable subscription fees, licensing, and premium features.

Protection Against Exploitation

Another driving factor is the fear of exploitation by larger companies. Cloud providers like Amazon and Microsoft have been criticized for leveraging open source software to generate profits without contributing back. This dynamic pushes smaller companies to restrict access to their source code as a defensive measure.

5. The Impact on Developers and Users

Loss of Transparency

When companies transition to closed source, users lose access to the source code. This lack of transparency can make it difficult to identify vulnerabilities or customize the software for specific needs.

Fragmentation and Forking

Closed source shifts often lead to fragmentation within the open source community. Developers may create forks—alternative versions of the software—to preserve the original open source vision. While this keeps the spirit of collaboration alive, it also divides resources and efforts.

6. Abandoned Open Source Projects

The transition from open to closed source often leaves communities with abandoned open source projects. Examples include Oracle’s acquisition of Sun Microsystems, which led to concerns about the future of Java and OpenOffice.

While some abandoned projects find new life through forks or alternative communities, others fade into obscurity. This highlights the fragility of open source initiatives when commercial interests take precedence.

7. Case Study: Red Hat and the CentOS Controversy

Red Hat, a long-time champion of open source, faced criticism in 2020 when it announced the shift of CentOS from a downstream rebuild of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to CentOS Stream, an upstream development branch. This change effectively ended CentOS as a free, stable clone of RHEL.

While Red Hat justified the move as a way to innovate more effectively, the decision angered users who relied on CentOS for its stability and compatibility. Forks like Rocky Linux and AlmaLinux quickly emerged to fill the gap, demonstrating the resilience of open source communities in the face of corporate shifts.

8. Broader Implications for Open Source vs Closed Source

The rise of proprietary software transitions has reignited debates about the merits and challenges of open source vs closed source models. While closed source offers better control and monetization opportunities for companies, it often alienates users and developers who value openness and collaboration.

The future of open source hinges on finding sustainable business models that align with its core principles. Companies like GitLab and Automattic (WordPress) offer examples of how open source can thrive without abandoning its roots.

9. The Road Ahead: Balancing Open and Closed Source

As the tech landscape evolves, companies must strike a balance between open and closed source approaches. Hybrid models, which combine open source transparency with proprietary monetization strategies, may offer a viable path forward.

Ultimately, the success of any software—open or closed—depends on its ability to meet user needs, foster innovation, and adapt to changing market dynamics. By learning from past transitions, companies can navigate these challenges while staying true to their values.

FAQs

1. Why do companies shift from open source to closed source?

Companies often shift to closed source to protect their intellectual property, generate revenue, and prevent exploitation by larger corporations.

2. What are some examples of companies that abandoned open source?

Notable examples include MongoDB, Elastic, and Red Hat’s CentOS transition.

3. How does the transition affect developers and users?

The shift to closed source limits transparency, reduces user autonomy, and often leads to fragmentation within the community.

4. What are forks, and how do they relate to abandoned open source projects?

Forks are alternative versions of software created by developers to preserve the open source vision after a project transitions to closed source or is abandoned.

5. Can open source and closed source coexist?

Yes, hybrid models that blend open source transparency with proprietary monetization strategies can offer a balanced approach.

6. What is the future of open source?

The future of open source depends on sustainable business models, community support, and the ability to adapt to evolving market demands.