The manifesto
Open source solved freedom.
It never solved sustainability.
The movement that made source code available to everyone was one of the great achievements of our era. But it left an unanswered question: who pays for the care? nosource is the next move — and it puts AI in its rightful place.
The bargain that broke
Open source and free software were never about price. As the Free Software Foundation itself insists, “free” means freedom, not cost — projects are explicitly encouraged to charge for the software. The revolution was about the right to read, run, and change code, and it won.
What it did not settle was the economics. For two decades the dominant answer was: give the software away, sell the subscription and the support. Red Hat built a multi-billion-dollar business this way. But as one industry founder put it bluntly, it was “giant value creation, very little value capture” — and no one else could replicate it.
— Sid Sijbrandij, co-founder of GitLab, Open Core Ventures (2023)
The people were left unpaid
Underneath the world's software sits a layer of maintainers who are, by and large, not paid to do it. In Tidelift's 2024 survey of maintainers, 60% were unpaid and 60% had quit or considered quitting. Nadia Eghbal's Ford Foundation report called it what it is: the unseen labor behind our digital infrastructure.
That is not only unfair — it is dangerous. In 2024 the xz-utils backdoor
reached global distribution because attackers spent years grooming a single,
overburdened, unpaid volunteer maintainer. The result was a maximum-severity
(CVSS 10.0) backdoor in software shipped across the internet. Under-funded
maintenance is now a systemic security risk.
So the licenses fled
When the economics fail, projects retreat. Between 2021 and 2024, company after company abandoned open licensing to stop cloud vendors from reselling their work without contributing back: Elastic, MongoDB, HashiCorp's move to the Business Source License, Sentry's Functional Source License, and Red Hat's own change to RHEL source access. Each was a rational response to a broken model — and each spent hard-won community trust to make it.
nosource: fix the economics at the source
nosource starts from a different premise. The software is free of charge — zero license fee, permanently — under the nosource agreement. There is no subscription to protect, no cloud vendor to fence out, no relicensing endgame. The paid value moves entirely to the one thing that was always scarce and is now more valuable, not less: expert human service.
And that service is delivered in the open. Every registered provider publishes an hourly rate before a patron engages them. The agreement asks patrons to give their own community the first option to provide support; when they need more, they turn to providers who have registered with nosource.ai and accepted the same terms. It is a governed commons — the kind of durable, self-organizing arrangement Elinor Ostrom won a Nobel Prize for describing, and Yochai Benkler named a “third mode” of production beyond the market and the firm.
AI in its rightful place
This is where AI belongs — not replacing the provider, but giving them superpowers. The evidence is already clear: generative AI raised customer-support productivity by 14% on average, and 34% for the least-experienced workers, by spreading the best practitioners' know-how to everyone. Anthropic's own economic data finds most real-world AI use augments people rather than automating them away.
nosource takes that literally. AI develops the software and assists the support, so providers move beyond code to automating intent — capturing what a patron actually wants and delivering it, serving more people, better, for less. The software costs nothing. The people are paid fairly and openly. AI makes them superhuman.
The art of spinning
The oldest art, made new.
What the Greeks did on sunlit stone — reasoning truth into the world through dialogue — now amplified by a mind that holds every word humankind has written. There is a name for the power to spin a living thing into being. We have claimed it.
Sources
The claims on this page are grounded in primary and credible secondary sources. We do not claim to be OSI-approved open source: the nosource agreement is a novel license under which the software is free of charge.
- Free Software Foundation, “Selling Free Software” — gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html. Open Source Initiative, “The Open Source Definition” — opensource.org/osd.
- Sid Sijbrandij, “The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat,” Open Core Ventures (2023) — opencoreventures.com. Joel Spolsky, “Strategy Letter V” (2002).
- Tidelift, “2024 State of the Open Source Maintainer” (2024). Nadia Eghbal, “Roads and Bridges,” Ford Foundation (2016).
- CVE-2024-3094 — nvd.nist.gov; Andres Freund, oss-security disclosure (2024).
- Elastic (2021); HashiCorp BUSL (2023); Sentry FSL (2023); MongoDB SSPL (2018); Red Hat RHEL source change (2023).
- Elinor Ostrom, “Governing the Commons” (1990), Nobel Prize (2009). Yochai Benkler, “Coase's Penguin” (2002).
- Brynjolfsson, Li & Raymond, “Generative AI at Work,” NBER w31161 (2023). Anthropic, “Anthropic Economic Index” (2025).