Don’t Blame Open Source, Sam!

Why is OpenAI confused about open-source and what could be the solution?

Khalid Saqr, Ph.D. Board Advisor, ScienceWerx Inc.

Open source was supposed to be a revolution—a grassroots effort that democratized software development, empowered global collaboration, and dismantled monopolies. But that revolution took a detour. OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman recently admitted that his company has landed “on the wrong side of history” by restricting its research and development. Sam expressed how OpenAI is confused about this view by stating that “Not everyone at OpenAI shares this view”. The irony, of course, is that OpenAI isn’t the outlier here—it’s the result of a broader struggle.

The same mentality that once championed open-source collaboration is now grappling with the consequences of its openness being leveraged by global competitors. For OpenAI, the threat became real when China’s DeepSeek, an open-source AI startup, rapidly captured market share and contributed to a staggering decline in the valuations of major tech companies like Nvidia, which lost nearly $600 billion. This isn’t a singularity—it’s a signal that open-source, once seen as a strategic advantage, now feels like a vulnerability in a global race for technological dominance.

To my understanding, missing out on open source isn't the problem, as Altman says, the problem is the lack of a pragmatic future-hedging strategy. GitHub, originally an open-source paradise for developers, was acquired by Microsoft and strategically integrated into its enterprise services, giving the company a future-hedging advantage and raising questions about independence and privacy. React, the open-source library built by Facebook (now Meta), became a critical web development tool while simultaneously feeding Meta’s control over key web ecosystems. The lesson? Open source was never a problem for tech giants; because they knew how to use it for their advantage.?

The open-source narrative was always two things: an ideology of collaboration and a strategy of control. Tech giants embraced it publicly while quietly bending it to serve their long-term goals. Take Google, for instance, which built Android as an open-source platform and then layered proprietary services like the Play Store and Maps on top. The result? A system that looks open but locks users into an ecosystem where Google controls the most valuable pieces.

OpenAI has followed a similar path in the beginning. Once a poster child for open research, it now limits access to its most powerful models under the guise of “safety concerns.” Sam Altman’s admission isn’t just an acknowledgment of a mistake—it’s a reflection of how open-source ideals have been weaponized to create dependency, not empowerment. Meanwhile, challengers like China’s DeepSeek have taken advantage of this disillusionment, marketing their R1 chatbot as a low-cost, public-spirited alternative. But let’s be real: this is less about altruism and more about geopolitics. DeepSeek isn’t just selling an AI model—it’s selling a narrative of China’s technological sovereignty.

Web3, on the other hand, is the strategic response open source never had from people. It acknowledges that openness alone isn’t enough—without decentralized ownership and economic incentives, exploitation is inevitable. Web3 directly addresses the failures of the past by embedding protections into its very infrastructure. Tokenized contributions, decentralized ownership, and baked-in rewards shift the power dynamic by ensuring that creators aren’t just contributors—they’re stakeholders with real control and financial benefits. Where open source let corporations profit off unpaid labor, Web3 embeds shared value into its infrastructure. It’s not about idealism—it’s about correcting the imbalance that open source couldn’t solve: making sure those who build innovation also benefit from it.

The web3 version of the Open-Science model

Science has been held hostage. For years, publicly funded research has ended up locked behind expensive journal subscriptions and privatized by pharmaceutical giants that patent life-saving treatments. This isn’t just an academic problem—it’s a global one. Researchers in developing nations often can’t afford access to cutting-edge findings, and life-saving innovations stagnate because they’re tied up in bureaucratic or profit-driven bottlenecks.

Take the example of the COVID-19 vaccine. Despite international calls for knowledge-sharing and open collaboration, pharmaceutical companies raced to patent breakthroughs that were developed with public funding. Countries without the economic power to negotiate licensing deals were left waiting—an open-source failure with real human consequences.

DeSci’s core appeal lies in its attempt to bypass this chokehold. By decentralizing funding, publication, and data access, it allows global researchers to collaborate without the gatekeeping of elite institutions. But its success will depend on whether it can scale beyond niche experiments and confront the entrenched power structures of Big Pharma and the academic publishing monopolies. Because if it can’t, DeSci will be just another nice idea that got steamrolled by reality.

The SocialFi promise to empower content creators

In theory, open source was meant to be a digital commons—a place where anyone could contribute and benefit equally. But in practice, it’s been a one-way street. Developers build free tools that corporations monetize. Think of Red Hat’s acquisition by IBM, where open-source tools were repackaged and sold for billions, or the countless unpaid contributors to libraries like OpenSSL, whose underfunded maintenance has led to critical security vulnerabilities like Heartbleed. Open-source developers do the work; the corporations reap the rewards. Moreover, when we think of content in addition to code, the scale becomes mind blowing. Social media platforms generated a staggering 30 ZB of data in 2024 equivalent to $1.19 trillions driven by content-targeted advertising and attention marketing. Creators get less than 2% of this value, highlighting a more serious challenge with tech-pragmatism than the one Sam Altman is blaming open source for.

SocialFi promises to fix the attention economy by introducing token-based incentives and governance mechanisms that empower creators to have their fair share. In reality, though, it’s fighting an uphill battle. Just like DeSci, it’s up against massive incumbents who are very good at co-opting movements and turning them into buzzwords, or just blaming them when they don’t work in their favor. We’ve seen this before: Web2 platforms promised decentralized connection, but we ended up acquired by tech giants like Meta and Google. There’s no reason to believe Web3 is immune.

The real potential of SocialFi lies not in creating new tech platforms but in exposing the exploitation embedded in the old ones. By showing that open-source contributors, content creators, and users have been subsidizing corporate empires for years, SocialFi can create pressure for systemic change. Whether that change comes through Web3 or old-fashioned organizing is an open question—but the time for ignoring the problem has passed.

It’s a fight for narrative control

As promising as Web3 is, it’s not immune to co-optation. The same pragmatism that bent open source into a tool of corporate dominance could easily infiltrate decentralized networks. We’re already seeing early signs of this, with venture capitalists gaining outsized influence in many blockchain projects.

The real fight, then, isn’t just about technology—it’s about narrative control. Some technology companies want to redefine open source as a matter of national security and responsible AI governance. But we shouldn’t be fooled. This isn’t about protecting users or mitigating risks; it’s about protecting their market position.

Movements like DeSci and SocialFi offer a chance to reclaim the narrative and rebuild open source on a more equitable foundation. But success will require more than idealism. It will require a global, grassroots movement to hold these systems accountable and ensure they remain decentralized.