Forked Over: Is Open Source Still Open, or Have Big Tech and AI Hijacked the Code?

The State of Open Source: Is It Still Relevant?

The future of open source won’t be dictated by a single event, company, or philosophy. It will be determined by those willing to engage in complex, sometimes uncomfortable conversations—discussions where people with vastly different viewpoints sit at the same table and work through the difficult questions.

Tech elitism—whether corporate or underground—stifles these discussions. Pointless debates prevent them from producing results. If open-source communities fail to create truly open dialogues, then they risk falling into the same patterns of exclusion and control that they were meant to disrupt.

In a world where AI-driven automation, corporate-backed frameworks, and walled gardens of proprietary software dominate the conversation, the question of open source’s relevance is not just academic—it is existential.

During Boston New Technology’s Virtual Tech Week, a session dedicated to open source aimed to address this shifting landscape. What emerged was a conversation that exposed the deep fault lines between idealism and commercialization, community and control, innovation and security.

The discussion, led by Steve Vilkas , with strong contributions from Henry Matthews w and Jason Kraus , cut through the usual talking points and dug into the real stakes of open source’s evolution.

Prelude:

Fragmentation in Tech and Startups: The Double-Edged Sword of Open Systems

Fragmentation is a recurring lament in tech and startups. Investors complain about fragmentation in markets, developers talk about fragmentation in tooling, and founders struggle with fragmentation in communities. Ironically, some of the loudest voices decrying fragmentation are also the ones causing it—whether intentionally or not.

There is a fundamental contradiction at play. Open systems, by their very nature, resist centralization. They invite contribution from many different sources, which increases diversity of thought but also makes cohesion difficult. The more open a system becomes, the harder it is to enforce standards, define a shared vision, or ensure security. Conversely, the more structured a system is, the more it risks becoming exclusionary.

Even those acting in good faith struggle with this paradox.

• The Founder Dilemma – A startup founder wants to build a community platform that thrives on user-generated content. But to ensure quality, they must introduce curation mechanisms—which, by definition, exclude some content. The more they control curation, the less “open” the platform becomes.
• The Startup Engineer’s Challenge – The CTO or lead engineer faces a similar issue. The CEO demands a seamless, open-source-inspired environment, yet also expects security, moderation, and compliance with regulations. The developer must navigate the contradiction of building an open system that functions with the guardrails of a closed one.

Even in social and advocacy spaces, where openness is supposed to be a guiding principle, fragmentation emerges from unintended gatekeeping.

Take groups aimed at helping marginalized communities in tech. Their intent is to create safe, empowering spaces. But in doing so, many wall off access to outsiders, replicating the very exclusionary structures they sought to counteract. This is not to suggest that every space must be open to all—it’s simply an example of how even the most well-meaning efforts can contribute to the fragmentation problem.

What often gets lost in these conversations is that fragmentation is not inherently bad. The problem is not the existence of separate spaces, communities, or approaches. The real issue is the lack of bridges between them.

That is where Boston New Technology has always stood apart.

BNT’s Role in a Fragmented World: Bridging, Not Walling Off

BNT has never been about a single slice of the tech ecosystem. It was never designed as a playground only for investors, only for developers, or only for a select type of founder. It has always been a bridge, an open hub where different pieces of the tech community intersect—often unpredictably.

But legacy communities like BNT cannot afford to operate as if it’s still 2011.

In the early days, the fragmentation was simpler—corporate vs. indie, VC-backed vs. bootstrapped, elite institutions vs. scrappy builders. The lines were clearer, and many people saw BNT as a space where those different groups could interact.

Now, fragmentation takes more complicated forms. The landscape is filled with highly specialized, self-reinforcing circles that rarely interact:

• The AI researcher in an academic lab vs. the startup founder trying to commercialize machine learning
• The Web3 enthusiast vs. the SaaS pragmatist
• The social impact founder vs. the hardcore capitalist investor
• The marginalized group support network vs. the broader industry they hope to change

BNT’s strength—and its renewed relevance—is in refusing to pick sides. It remains one of the few spaces where different parts of the ecosystem are given equal footing, where discussions are not gated by credentials or ideology, and where practical progress is valued over posturing.

Key Takeaways: The Stakes of Open Source Today

1. The Culture Factor: A Good Project Is Built on More Than Code

One of the first major insights came from Vilkas, who framed open source not just as a collection of freely available software but as an ecosystem shaped by human behavior. The value of a project depends heavily on the culture of the people maintaining it—something that can be difficult to assess from the outside.

"Try to get an understanding of the culture," he said. "That's hard when you're just on GitHub, but that’s why you have to either get face-to-face with people or get on a call and do a social intelligence read."

This perspective resonated because it acknowledged the underlying reality: Open source success hinges on trust, accountability, and alignment between contributors. A strong technical foundation means little if the people behind it are misaligned, disorganized, or, in some cases, outright malicious.

This point led directly into another pressing concern—the security risks of open source.

2. Open Source’s Security Problem: The Threat from Within

“You really have to practice these three things: Self-efficacy, situational awareness, and clarity. If you're engaging with an open-source project and it seems kind of shady, it probably is. Run as far as you can.”

Henry Matthews, relatively new to the world of software engineering, brought up a chilling example of how open-source projects can be exploited. He referenced a case where an administrator burned out, and their replacement introduced malicious code over time, eventually corrupting the entire system.

This led to a broader discussion on how projects guard against such threats, with Vilkas outlining three essential principles for navigating open-source involvement:

• Self-efficacy – Understanding one's own competencies and limitations.
• Situational awareness – Being able to detect red flags in a project's governance.
• Clarity – Knowing whether a project's evolution aligns with one's own objectives.

The security vulnerabilities inherent in open-source projects are often viewed as trade-offs for transparency and accessibility. Yet, as these platforms grow in influence, the risks cannot be ignored. It raised a pressing question—is governance in open-source ecosystems keeping up with the sophistication of today’s threats?

3. Open Source vs. Venture Capital: The Business Model Dilemma

Jason Kraus provided a critical perspective from the investment side. While open-source projects often lay the groundwork for technological innovation, they are rarely structured for commercial success.

"It's easier to get started," he noted, "but that doesn’t mean it's easier to turn an idea into a business."

Kraus’s point underscored a fundamental issue—many open-source projects lack a clear monetization strategy. While some rely on enterprise partnerships or foundation grants, others struggle to move beyond hobbyist efforts. Even the most successful open-source companies, such as Red Hat, Elastic, and MongoDB, have had to balance community contributions with corporate interests.

The conversation naturally turned to OpenAI as a case study. Once positioned as an open-source nonprofit, it has since become a closed, for-profit entity. For some, this was a necessary pivot to sustain innovation. For others, it was a betrayal of open-source principles.

This tension—between maintaining an open ecosystem and ensuring financial viability—is one that every open-source founder must contend with.

4. The Pivot Question: When Does an Open Source Project Stop Being Open?

Perhaps the most uncomfortable truth raised during the discussion was that not all open-source projects stay open forever.

Vilkas drew a parallel between startups and open-source initiatives: Just as businesses pivot to survive, so do open-source projects. The real question is whether those pivots preserve the project's core mission or abandon it entirely.

This question is particularly relevant now, as AI and machine learning models increasingly rely on datasets and algorithms that start out open but later become proprietary. The challenge is ensuring that these pivots enhance rather than erode the spirit of open collaboration.

The Broader Implications: Why This Conversation Must Continue

This discussion made one thing abundantly clear—open source is at an inflection point.

• The security risks are growing as projects become larger and more critical.
• The business model challenges remain unresolved for many contributors.
• The role of AI is shifting development paradigms, potentially pulling open-source efforts into corporate ownership.

While the conversation unpacked these dilemmas, it did not resolve them. Nor could it. The future of open source will be decided through ongoing debate, adaptation, and, most importantly, action.

Shweta’s Open Source Legacy & the Future of Community Collaboration

One missing voice in this discussion was Shweta Agrawal , who has been instrumental in revitalizing Boston’s open-source and community-driven tech spaces. In addition to her leadership at BNT, Shweta's work with Product Camp Boston and Women in Tech reflects the need for more inclusive, dynamic conversations about where tech is heading.

Events like these serve as an incubator for ideas, much like Startup Weekend Boston will function as a microcosm of open source in action. For 54 hours, developers, designers, and business minds will collaborate, build, and refine their ideas—without rigid hierarchies or walled-off knowledge. It will be an experiment in real-time open innovation, mirroring the very principles discussed in this session.

John Dufresne was mentioned during the BNT Virtual Tech Week session as an example of the kind of organic, open-source-style community building that happens at Startup Weekend. Specifically, RocketBean Studio and its role in streaming events like Startup Weekend at the Harvard iLab were highlighted as part of the spontaneous and collaborative nature of these gatherings.

"What comes to mind in our real life, or actually I should say in-person open-source community at Startup Weekend is like, we have people like John Dufresne. Shout out to John, RocketBean Studio." "Like he was doing a live stream of Startup Weekend the last time at the Harvard iLab that was generating lots of views."

Dufresne’s work at RocketBean Studio fits well into the broader conversation about how open-source principles extend beyond code and into community-building efforts. His initiative isn’t just about virtual coworking—it’s about fostering shared spaces for innovation, collaboration, and serendipitous learning experiences, much like what Startup Weekend itself aims to do.

Dufresne’s work serves as a reminder that open-source culture is about more than repositories and licenses—it’s about how we create shared spaces for innovation and knowledge exchange.

Spicy Take (You Missed It In Its Entirety, Sadly)

Jason Kraus: “AI is here to stay, but we’re oversaturated with startups calling themselves ‘AI companies’ when really, they’re just using AI as a feature. It’s like cloud computing—you don’t go around saying ‘I’m a cloud-enabled taxi company.’

Right on JaaS. It's just part of the stack now.

The difference is, some founders and investors are still treating AI as a standalone value proposition rather than what it actually is—a powerful tool that enhances existing solutions. Companies that can seamlessly integrate AI into workflows, rather than relying on it as a branding gimmick, will be the ones that sustain long-term value.”

Why This Event Mattered for Tech Week

This session provided a necessary counterbalance to the AI hype cycle that dominates most tech conversations. While automation, large language models, and proprietary tech solutions dominate headlines, the principles of open collaboration remain at the heart of Boston’s tech identity.

Tomorrow’s session will shift the focus to tech archetypes—challengers, churners, and charmers—an exploration of the different personalities shaping today’s tech landscape. It will serve as a natural follow-up to today’s discussion, as the people behind the code ultimately determine where technology goes next.

This is not the last word on open source. It’s the beginning of a much larger reckoning. The question isn’t whether open source is still relevant. The question is whether we’re willing to fight for it.