ICTworks

Open source software exists in the development sector to promote equity, transparency, and local ownership particularly in contexts where proprietary alternatives are unaffordable or inappropriate. Yet, open source software models in the Global South are often fragile – heavily dependent on donor funding and challenges the community to rethink sustainability.

Can core open source principles be maintained through commercialization?

In rethinking the open source business model, it’s essential to remain critical but cautious, particularly when it comes to preserving the foundational principles that define open source: free redistribution, source code availability, the right to create derivative works, and transparent governance structures.

Reframing the Problem

What the current diminishing donor funding has exposed is not only the vulnerability of the open source business model but, more critically, the underlying governance and ownership structures of these tools. It compels us to interrogate whether open source initiatives deployed in the Global South are truly community-led.

• Are local actors meaningfully engaged in setting roadmaps, shaping priorities, and allocating funds?
• Or do decision-making processes remain concentrated in coordinating institutions or global NGOs?

While centralized governance has enabled operational efficiency and continuity, it also introduces a single point of failure. When these lead institutions face financial strain or shifting priorities, the entire ecosystem can be left exposed.

This reveals a deeper structural problem: many so-called open source projects lack distributed governance, local stewardship, or embeddedness in national institutions. And that undermines long-term sustainability far more than the absence of a commercial business model.

True Local Ownership

To build resilience, especially in the Global South, local ownership must be more than symbolic. There must be institutional capacity and financing mechanisms that allow local stakeholders like ministries of health, academic institutions, and NGOs to not only use the tools but contribute to their core development and governance.

There are of course many examples of local actors who have stepped up by maintaining and adapting tools. But a purely localized or distributed approach can also be a double-edged sword.

Without a unifying body to coordinate innovation, enforce standards, and prevent duplication, fragmentation and tool forking become serious risks, leading to inefficiencies and lost collective learning. So what is needed to strike the right balance will vary for each tool and ecosystem.

Is Commercialization Practical?

It’s worth also mentioning that a transition to hybrid models where sustainability is achieved through commercialization of the open source tool may not be realistic or desirable for many tools in the Global South.
These tools often serve non-commercial user bases and address public goods, not market-driven needs.

Importantly, sustainability doesn’t always hinge on commercialization. It requires a viable support ecosystem, which can include in-kind contributions, state investment, multi-partner coalitions, and collaborative governance.

Examples from the Global North like Mozilla, Kubernetes, and Apache Hadoop illustrate how hybrid, non-commercial models can succeed. These projects benefit from mature foundation-based governance structures, strong corporate backing, and integration into broader commercial ecosystems.

Companies like Google, IBM, and Red Hat contribute not just funding but full-time engineering talent, community management, and infrastructure support. These factors create robust ecosystems that reinforce the tools’ longevity and relevance.

A Replicable Model?

However, it’s essential to recognize that these projects are foundational technologies: interoperable, modular, and sector-agnostic and are embedded in the global digital infrastructure.

In contrast, most Global South tools are mission-specific, tightly bound to domains like public health, education, or social services. Their user bases are narrower, their use cases are context-bound, and their funding streams are tied to donor cycles or government budgets.

This fundamental difference highlights the danger of applying a generalized open source narrative to all tools.
It risks erasing the unique constraints and opportunities of Global South contexts. To chart a sustainable path forward, we must recenter the conversation around governance equity, contextual fit, and ecosystem-based resilience, rather than defaulting to business model fixes.

Not All Open Source Tools are the Same

Open source tools are not a monolith. Their viability in a constrained funding environment can be influenced by a combination of factors that include:

1. Scope and functionality

Tools vary from narrowly focused applications (e.g., OpenEMPI for master patient indexing) to comprehensive platforms (e.g., DHIS2) with modular architectures that support diverse use cases. Broader scope and flexibility can unlock cross-sectoral adoption.

This adaptability opens the door to shared infrastructure models, pooled funding, and multi-stakeholder investment. In this way, flexibility can become a pathway to fiscal sustainability, as tools that serve multiple needs are more likely to attract sustained institutional backing, reduce duplication, and justify long-term support.

2. History and maturity

Longevity and stability matter. Mature platforms with years of development and stable codebases (e.g., DHIS2, OpenMRS) often have established user communities, documentation, and institutional memory that can support sustainability.

3. User base and embeddedness

The extent to which a tool is embedded in national or local systems plays a crucial role in its resilience. Platforms with wide adoption across governments or institutions are more likely to attract sustained investment, local contributions, and in-kind support.

4. Legitimacy and governance

Tools governed through transparent, inclusive, and genuinely participatory processes, beyond symbolic gestures of openness, tend to build deeper trust among stakeholders and foster long-term collaboration.

When governance allows meaningful input from local implementers, governments, and community actors, it incentivizes continued engagement and investment. Strong governance structures that distribute ownership and decision-making can unlock co-financing opportunities, institutional partnerships, and broader political buy-in.

Rethinking Without Compromising

Rather than forcing all open source tools into commercial hybrid molds, the conversation needs to shift toward:

• Building federated funding mechanisms, where cost-sharing and pooled investment replace top-down donor dependency.
• Prioritizing capacity building, so local developers and implementers can sustain core functions independently.
• Strengthening governance and inclusivity, particularly to empower Global South institutions.
• Expanding service-based models, which focus on monetizing services such as implementation support, training, hosting, customization, or analytics rather than the software itself. This model preserves open-access principles while enabling viable revenue generation through value-added offerings.

The survival and success of open source tools in low-resource contexts will depend not just on better business models, but on governance, legitimacy, ecosystem depth, and adaptability. If we fail to address these systemic areas, we risk losing more than software—we lose the potential for equitable, community-driven digital infrastructure.

By Mikael Hailu, a Senior Advisor Digital Health at Norwegian Red Cross