Johannes Näder – Let’s tackle Openwashing! #FOSSBack

In this talk, Johannes Nieder discusses the importance of free software and the concept of open washing. As a representative of the Free Software Foundation Europe, he emphasizes that free software grants users essential freedoms, allowing them to use, study, share, and improve it. Nieder introduces the 'public money, public code' initiative, advocating for software funded by taxpayers to be licensed freely. He explains that open washing misleads users by presenting proprietary software as free software, creating a false impression that can harm the ecosystem. The speaker provides examples of companies engaging in open washing through various methods, such as misleading licensing and buzzwording. Nieder argues that recognition and action against open washing are crucial for maintaining trust in the software community and ensuring public administrations have control over digital infrastructure.

My name is Johannes Nieder. I'm working with the Free Software Foundation Europe as a policy person. And before I dive into the topic, I would like to say some words about the Free Software Foundation Europe, the FSFE. And also about free software. So, we are a charity that empowers users to control technology. Software is deeply involved in all our lives. And this is why it's important that

software rather helps us than restricting us. And for that, we believe we need free What is free software? And I think here at FOSDEM backstage, this is a bit carrying yeah, or preaching to the to the converted. But as it is really important also for the for the further talk, I would still say some words about it. Free software is of course software that guarantees every user

four basic rights or freedoms as we call it. Everyone is allowed to use it, to study, to share, and to improve it, to use it for any reason, to share it also free or for money. This is both possible. These four basic freedoms are guaranteed through licenses. As you all know, license lists are run by the Open Source Initiative, by the Free Software Foundation, or by the

Debian project. And if any license is not in there, then it's probably not a free software license. And if you take a look at license and only one of those freedoms is missing, then it's also not free software or open source, then it's proprietary. And this is important for yeah, for the further talk and for the topic if we talk about open washing. Yeah, we at the

Free Software Foundation Europe are convinced that we need controllable, shapeable, and transparent digital infrastructures. And to to achieve this, we need free software in public administrations, in the education sector, and on private devices. Coming back to the topic, I would like to start with a success story, then explain a bit the topic of open washing, what it's about, give you a definition, talk about open washing methods,

and at this point I will also give you some examples. Um we will have a look at why this is important and what we can do to curb it. So, first the success story. Um this is public money, public code. So, when we at the Free Software Foundation Europe, I think by now 9 years ago, invented public money, public code, we wouldn't have thought that um yeah,

it would become that successful, it would make it into um yeah, um policy strategies, um debates, party papers, um like um yeah, across the political spectrum, like today. Um this is really something that um everyone working in our field has on the radar somehow. Um and this is also because um public money, public code has a very simple claim. We want um yeah, software created using taxpayers'

to be released as free software on a free software license. So, whenever it's public code, uh whenever it's public money, it should be public code as well. Of course, this is somehow um drilling through hardwood, so it's going to take some years. Uh we will not see public public public money, public code 100% across Europe um this year, by the end of this year, or next year.

Uh so, it will take us some time. Um and this is why we um should start now because it should start happening soon, it should starting start soon, so we will finally reach those 100%. So, we need incremental change across Europe on all levels. So, European level, state level, um also in municipalities, everywhere. Yeah, we see progress, but at the same time we see some problems. So,

there's a lack of clear policies for public money, Where we have policies already in place, or we have strategies in place, there's often a lack of implementation, also because of loopholes probably that are in those policies. We have a lack of statistics to measure progress. This is really a problem because we cannot sometimes not tell whether we are moving really forward in the right pace. There is,

and this is what the last talk was about, lack of sustainable budgets for free software. And we see, this is what this talk is about, problematic competition practices. Open washing is one example, not the only but one example for this. This is why we at the Free Software Foundation Europe decided that we have to be, yeah, not only helpful and demanding when it comes to public money

public code, helpful in advising public administrations and decision makers how to get there, but also at the same time to be watchdogs. Yeah, so open washing, what is it? For for sure it is not new and it will not disappear. It harms public money public code and free software, and we need to recognize open washing, talk about it, and curb Um, this morning my 5-year-old daughter asked

me what my today's talk would be about, and I um I told I told I tried to explain very in very very simple words to her, and I said, so it's about someone pretending to release free software, but it really is not. Of course, she probably won't understand what what free software is. Maybe she does if she has read our Free Software Foundation Europe's book, "Ada and

Zangemann". And she has, several times, or I have read it to her. Um, but even you can even put it more simple. It's about misleading people, it's about misguiding people, it's about lying. And this is something that even children can understand. Yeah, so but to come to a bit better definition and also to understanding of which different open washing methods there are, we have during the last

years been conducting a survey. It is also still open, you can scan this code and fill it out if you want to um, to find out more about open washing and to get yeah, impressions from the community. and we yeah, we received a lot of answers there, also some really interesting ones. Um like this one. So, someone was hoping for an open source washing machine. So, in

fact, um his idea is not so wrong. So, I I've conducted some uh some research on this and on GitHub I found a project called open washer, which in fact is an open source washing machine. Okay, but not so um helpful for our topic. That's why we um based on the survey came up with a hopefully profound definition. Open washing means creating the misleading impression of developing,

offering, or otherwise supporting free when in fact offering proprietary software. So, there are two criteria to be fulfilled. First, it must be or so, also product that is only partly um free software uh is proprietary. And there must be some misleading communication about around the whole thing. So, the manufacturer gives the impression that this software is free software. Um I would say open washing is a form

of fraudulent labeling, usually with intention of gaining a market advantage for proprietary software products. Talking about um motivation, there yeah, there may be there may be two main ones. The one thing I just already mentioned. So, it's gaining access to markets, about earning money, about having a an advantage um against competitors. And the other one is um to for companies to somehow benefit from the good image

that free software that open source has, and to be part of the free software community while selling proprietary What are the key actors? Of course, companies producing and selling proprietary software and trying to do open washing. This is pretty clear. Also, people in politics and in public administrations um who are for example working in in procurement offices and have to yeah, have to put out tenders and

have to put out tenders have to find criteria for those tenders. Also journalists in the media who shape how the term open or open source is framed publicly. And probably also us we are the ones so every one of us we are the ones that can uh and should take a better look at what is defined as open source or free software. And if it's not really

free software then um do something about it. So um coming to the methods and to the examples that I have from the survey we have um put together a a sort of typology of methods and strategies for open washing. And I will not go through every um point here and I don't have examples for every point here because then also it would probably take too long. But

for some um so for buzzwording the first one buzzwording and misleading naming so this list is also not sorted by priority or um something like that but um buzzwording misleading naming is um on purpose on the top of this list because it's something very common. Um so uh companies that try to yeah to to to be very um verbose about how open they are um but not

really being not really releasing free software. So some years ago this is in German sorry for that but it's about a German company probably um some of you from Germany will know the case um it's about the German uh northern German uh public service IT provider um Dataport that released the sovereign workplace um solution Phoenix for public and presented it as open source um while no one

so at least for my knowledge we also try to get the the code after we had received access to the to the software no one ever received the whole code and no one was able to deploy it so it was only run on their servers. It's a rather old story because after we and also other yeah other actors spoke up about this um and criticized it today

Phoenix is not there anymore. Um yeah but I have one other example for that might fit into this bus wording thing or I would be interested in your opinion also on that is open AI. So um we have this company that has open in in their name even and of course they don't really advertise their proprietary AI models as free software or as open source or open

weight even but they still have it in the name and this leaves I think many persons many people that are not technologically skilled with the impression that it's somehow more open than their competitors. But let me know what you think about in the Q&A. We have the second one is misleading licensing so if companies just um choose a license free software license and change some sentences or

add a word to the license title change some of the content without without really um telling anyone and selling it saying it's still it's free software it's open source. Um What I have here as partial openness probably of many of you will know under the term open core open core while claiming the whole thing to be open. Um or also having a community edition and enterprise edition

the community edition under free software license the under a proprietary license but claiming everything to be free software not really being open about the enterprise being proprietary. Uh example for this is the quite well known yeah this is not about the um community versus enterprise edition, but about the open core model. Um the password manager Bitwarden, they are very yeah, outspoken about it being open source, but

if you look at the repository, then you find that one part of it is under the Bitwarden license, which is not free software license, so it's um uh proprietary and um yeah, this makes it open washing, I would say. Um then we have something that has happened a lot during the last 5 to 17 years, relicensing a free software free software as proprietary, while claiming, yeah, we

are still very, very open. We are This is still very open. We are committed to open source, something like that. And for this yeah, some some examples like HashiCorp or Elastic will come to your minds, and some of them have reverted their decision and went back to free software, and some of them don't claim to be open source anymore today, but still they started like it, and

their yeah, damage has happened through it, I think. And um there are also actual examples. So, this is from from now. This is Arango, so German German company. Um They released in 2023 uh re- yeah, a blog post on their on the website, which you can see some excerpts here, um telling the public that they will switch to proprietary license, but still saying, um ArangoDB is a

company firmly grounded in open source, and below in in the summary part, um our commitment to open source ideas remain unshaken. So, I would say this also it goes So, as you see also um it's a bit of buzzwording. Um so, probably also those um things in those points in our list, they are not isolated. So, companies who do this open washing thing are trying to use

several um, methods at the same If you now look at the Arango website today, oh, oh, I have to hurry up. Then you will, um, of course, see that there is a community edition, open source, free for evaluation and non-commercial use, so it's proprietary. It's open washing. You find things like quiet re-licensing, so not being verbose about it, just doing it, hop- hoping no one notices. Free

client, proprietary server, uh, like Telegram as an example for that, where the, um, free software depends on the proprietary server back end. or, yeah. I will skip some points now and directly move to pseudo open AI, which I think is quite important now. So, even, you know, the whole debate about, um, free software models, um, is there free software AI? Um, there are good arguments, um, to

say that we need, um, the training data, but even if you say that, um, open weight would qualify as open source, which many of of us don't, I think, um, then even, even in that case, we will find some examples for, um, for open washing and a lot of examples for open washing. There, for example, XAI's Grok 2.5, which should have been open weight or open source,

even. Um, if you look at the license, it's a proprietary license. So, not even open weight in the sense of, um, yeah. One quick word about, or maybe I also, um, skip this part about sovereignty washing. Maybe you can tackle it in in the Q&A, because it's, uh, it's also a big thing. Um, just maybe, um, saying so much about it that, um, digital sovereignty, sovereignty, um,

cannot be reached without free software. So, buy European, buy European products is not enough for that, and a lot of this is happening to, trying to redefine digital sovereignty by saying it's enough if you just buy from European vendors, even if they're proprietary. So, why is the whole open washing thing It's a problem for a lot of reasons and for for who? So, for free software manufacturers,

they are not awarded in procurement, they lose revenue. For developers, they have probably loss of income and might face layoffs. For the community, where it could causes mutual distrust. For free software in itself because free software might face a reputational damage. Problems with proprietary products will be attributed to to free software. Open source is not working. Well, so Public administrations don't get control over digital infrastructures even

if they strive for it. There's no interoperability and there's an ongoing vendor lock-in. Mhm. And the general public is deceived about the sustainable use of taxpayers' money. So, the goals of public money, public code are undermined and there's a damage to the free software ecosystem. Now, just a quick word. We have muscle of summer. Um these are open washing is of course not the only problem for

the free software ecosystem. There are other ones and we should be really careful to label them correctly. So, if free software becomes proprietary without open washing communication around it, it's also a problem. Um if we have single maintainers lacking a community, it's a problem. Weak business models are problem. Free loading, vulnerable components as dependencies are problems, but this is all not open washing. Let's be very clear

about that. Last point and then hopefully time for Q&A. What can we do about it? Um public administrations are um yeah, it's it's I think um they um should try to reduce the risk of awarding contracts to open washers. They can do this by yeah, getting expertise and anchoring it in the reliable structures and institutions by using tender criteria that prevent open washing and they should maintain

the ability to change and willingness to learn. And they should of course try to avoid own open washing. There are several possibilities to do that. What can we all do? We should understand the strategies and methods of open washing and of unfair competition. Of course, avoid own open washing. This is pretty clear, I think. But also talk about it, raise awareness. We should monitor markets and public

administrations, what they do, what is happening around public money, public code. And if we see something that is um yeah, suspicious, then then we should ask questions, educate, and convince makers. there's not always a dishonest intention. Someone from the survey pointed us to that. It's good that people um yeah, you can always also talk to people and ask them why they do something that looks like open

washing. but if it seems to be on purpose, then we should point it out and criticize it. And other market also other market practices that harm free software. Because we do not want to end up in a future where um yeah, open washing defines how openness is seen. I would like to ask you to support us on the way. because this is our daily work at the

FSFE. So, please become an FSFE supporter today. We really need you and your support. And now, thank you. Q&A. If we have still the time. Hi. Thank you for the talk. Uh the second point you mentioned that uh companies are rewriting the the license on that. I thought the FSC at least the FSF license were copyrighted and not you with not not open source by the not

free software by themselves. You know, that you cannot change them. That's So, that's copyright infringement, no? Nothing? Yeah, right. But it's uh I So, I'm not a legal expert, but I think it's uh doesn't um it's not true for all licenses. So, some you can change and even if it's not allowed, um some people will try to do that and we have seen that. Um Trying to

yeah, just add some words and change the title and then say this is a open source license. And something like what Linux or some or Java, you know, is doing like adding a a line on top of the GPLV2 for example. You know what we call the Linux exception or the class path exception. Is that okay or is that that's still a Anything that contradicts the license

would make it then proprietary. I I would say so. But again, I'm not a legal expert here. Yeah, I also had a question um say hypothetically I were to work at a company that was uh complicit in any of these open washing practices myself. Um what what are some ways that you can Cuz obviously I mean I don't think I don't think you're going to be able

to change anything fundamentally about what the company's doing, but maybe some smart ways to go about just starting a conversation around open washing internally at a company. I mean if they have enough people on your side, then probably uh maybe it could make a difference. What we have seen with the examples that I mentioned before like so not I'm really not sure. Maybe Elastic um because they

they also um reverted their decision um because there was public pressure from the community. Yeah, I I think that public administrations need like clear standards to refer, especially in public tenders. So my question is about that. W- what kind of I mean when defining open source and you are writing a public tender, uh you can be open washed by the by the companies that that won that

that tender. So how public administrations can define uh open source licenses or or or what what um standards they can use to define that, Yeah, so we worked a bit at the FSFE with um Center for Digital Sovereignty in Germany in Schleswig-Holstein on that topic in the past. And one um smart smart thing I think to do is um yeah, so so what um what they do

or what also yeah with with their open code repository they have a criteria which licenses you can use to put your software on open code it's so on the open code repository and these are all free software licenses. So if this is a criterion then this could be helpful. Another criterion has the company in the past done any anything like open washing is there something known known

about it. And there are other criteria I think that would now would now lead to lead to far but there are I think there are ways to um pin it down and and make it um 1 0 clear that this is not an open washing company but there are ways to narrow the chances down. I've got a theoretical question. You don't have to answer it. It's part

of the education. I read last week a sentence like uh open by design instead of open source only. That was totally um nice nice So that's what I mean. nice marketing Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. So um I think one of the additional reasons why companies might try to open wash is because a lot of the EU acts have exceptions for open source software or open source AI whether

that exists or not and I was wondering is the FSFE maybe in a position to like call someone officially out on that like is there something like a class action or whatever is there any European instrument that you could use to actually hey you're claiming exceptions that don't actually apply to you. Is that something that you use part of your role? I must say that I'm so

we have someone in working in European politics so there I I cannot say really much about it at this point. Sorry. As a concerned citizen of Republic of Poland I'm really concerned about open washing of of our government and if you don't know like they're open washing with national LM open washing with our digital ID. They just recently they released only a set of UI components and

called okay, we open source the entire app. So, as a concerned citizen, what I can do to call these practices out considering that public opinion have literally no knowledge about open Okay, finally we have one so we have done some some internal work at the FSFE on open washing and we haven't published it yet and it's it's high time that we publish it. We have a volunteer

from Poland who has been asking us to publish it because he wants to use it to address the Polish government. Maybe you can wait some weeks. >> I'm waiting. >> it's on our website. So, one thing that that anyone can do is what Dan Brown from I think he's from the UK is doing on Codeberg. He's collecting open cases and making them public. Also trying to talk

with those open washers as I said and see if they might be willing to change something about that. At the same time, it's it this makes yeah gives gives it gives you a lot of pressure. I would say as an individual you can be you can always contact us and tell you and tell us if you if you see something. I don't know whether we will be

able to do something about that specific case. But we will try to raise the pressure and and be watchdogs and you can of course as I said click this link and support us at the FSFE to to help us doing something against it. Please, huge round of applause for Johannes.