Open Source Projects Are Brands, Says Article

Open source projects are brands

Open source software projects are, at their core, brands. A brand is a mark of reputation and quality. The inherent value of having code merged into a known, popular project like Linux or Kubernetes is that it gets distributed widely and is presumed to meet a certain standard.

The maintainers who approve that code act as independent auditors. Their review signals that a change is valuable and that they are willing to help support it. This is a powerful statement of quality assurance that is otherwise expensive to buy.

Maintainers have unique leverage

Because open source maintainers aren't accountable to a contributor's boss, they have the leverage to insist on high standards. They have no incentive to rubber-stamp a poor-quality pull request just because it's important to someone's management chain.

As the people most likely to inherit responsibility for the code, maintainers are directly incentivized to ensure it meets the project's bar. This creates a system where the brand's reputation is protected by those with the most to lose from its degradation.

There is a necessary balance, however. Excessively fussy or capricious maintainers can stagnate a project by driving away contributors. The review process is a structured critique, and encouraging contributors is as vital as upholding standards.

LLMs are changing the game

The rise of large language models is upending software development, making code generation faster and easier. This has led to a pressing question: when software is built this quickly, how do you verify the work and create trust?

Testing methodologies only go so far. Engineers ultimately need buy-in from peers, managers, and in regulated sectors like automotive, from official regulators. Aligning on goals and verifying requirements is becoming the new bottleneck.

This is where the open source brand becomes critical. In a future of cheaply generated code, the role of slow, bureaucratic, community-driven projects may shift. They become trusted sources of vetted, reliable components.

Open source as a trust mechanism

Historically, using open source was about productivity—grabbing a free, off-the-shelf solution. A 2022 Linux Foundation study estimated that 70-90% of any given software codebase is open source code.

But its value is deeper. Selecting a library from a reputable project with diversified support gives confidence that the component will be maintained. The community itself is the assurance that you can ship it without shouldering a massive maintenance burden or creating new security vulnerabilities.

• Provides vetted, reliable components
• Distributes maintenance burden across a community
• Offers assurance through diversified organizational support

Why open source hasn't "won"

Despite its ubiquity, most consumer products still run on proprietary systems, and right-to-repair advocates haven't yet prevailed. A key reason is that open source development is often slower and more expensive in terms of coordination.

Clear goals and product vision, managed by product leaders in companies, don't emerge by magic in open communities. Projects tend to be developer-driven, which can create gaps in:

• Documentation
• Community management
• Product vision and graphic design

The most successful open source projects often solve hard technical problems—like databases or compilers—where developer consensus on a good design is the primary requirement.

The future is maintenance

If we accept that open source projects are quality-assurance brands, then their future work will skew heavily toward maintenance. This encompasses all activities that assure quality.

For maintainers, this means the focus should shift. While writing code is important, the highest-value activities are those that uphold the project's standard of excellence.

The primary value of an open source project is tied more to its community and reputation than its velocity. This is a new spin on the old Apache Foundation motto: Community Over Code.