What our CEO talks about:
- What is Open Source? The meaning without tech jargon
- Open Source Licenses: GNU, MIT, and the Hierarchies
- What does Open Source not mean? The most common misunderstandings
- Open Source Software, Security, and Code Ownership
- When Open Source is not the right choice
- Open Source First: How Everything Started at LEAN-CODERS
What is Open Source? An explanation without tech jargon
Before we dive deeper into licenses, security, and business models, let's start with the most fundamental question: What does Open Source actually mean — and what does it not mean?
LC: How would you explain Open Source to someone who isn't technical — like your mother or your accountant?
Christoph: What fascinates me about Open Source is not the free aspect — that's great, of course. But mainly that I can adapt the software to my needs, that I really have access, know how it works, and can fix it. It's like an old washing machine or an old VW Beetle — you could repair it yourself without much guidance. Nowadays, that's getting harder and harder.
LC: What should people know about Open Source?
Christoph: To clarify misunderstandings: Open Source does not mean free. This is often a problem for many. They believe they earn nothing with Open Source — but that's not true. You can apply normal licensing models just as well. That's the big difference between "Free Beer" and "Free Software." to clarify: Open Source does not mean free. This is often a problem for many. They believe they earn nothing with Open Source — but that's not true. You can apply regular licensing models just the same. This is the big difference between "Free Beer" and "Free Software."
What's also important: In terms of security, Open Source products are significantly safer than proprietary software. Security leaks can be found faster — especially in times of AI. Anyone can contribute fixes. That's a lot of unpaid work, but: the community is stronger than the individual.
And that's why we see today that 90% of all important servers run on Linux, Android runs on mobile phones. All the good products in the developer space are Open Source, starting with VS Code . Even Microsoft , one of the biggest opponents of Open Source in the past, has become one of the most important contributors.
Open Source has already won. No one should be on the losing side.
Open Source Licenses: GNU, MIT, and the Hierarchies
Who actually decides what qualifies as Open Source? And are there gradations of how open a software really is?
LC: Is there an "Open Source Police"?
Christoph: Yes, there are several. Historically, from the Linux side, there was a movement: the Free Software Foundation. They developed the first licensing models that made things like Linux possible in the first place.
There is GNU, there is GNU 2, there is the MIT license. Nowadays, the MIT license is also the most commonly used in the Open Source environment.
But please, no legal questions — I'm not a lawyer. 😆
LC: Are there hierarchies? A ranking of how open software can be?
Christoph: I would say: No, there isn't. Not that I know of.
For products that are publicly accessible, you already have the wording "Open Source" on it. Accordingly, you have to meet certain conditions: Among other things, the source code must be hosted somehow, and it must also be downloadable in a functional state.
And then there are these false 50s that say: "We are actually Open Source at the core, but you can only use it if you acquire a proprietary license." And the actual source code that you might want to adapt is closed — only the core is open.
You have to look at these trade-offs. Not everything that glitters is gold. Just because someone says "I have an Open Source product", doesn't mean that the product is automatically good. Just as little — proprietary software, there are very, very good ones out there. For me, the freedom of choice is important: What do I do with my data? How do I want to handle my data? And with Open Source, I always have an advantage.
What does Open Source not mean? The most common misunderstandings
Most customers bring assumptions about Open Source that are simply wrong. And not every product that calls itself "Open Source" deserves that title.
LC: What do most customers misunderstand about Open Source when they first come to you?
Christoph: Complicated, difficult, hacker, product not stable, free, not professional.
And that's all nonsense.
LC: You looked at the Open Source product Plane. I noticed: I can't fork it and change the UI without making a fork. How do you deal with that?
Christoph: You have the option to fork. That means: From that point on, you've copied the code and can continue from there.
What is the case with Plane , why I don't see Plane as a great tool or pioneer in the Open Source community — is that they rely on a closed source principle. They made the core Open Source, everything around it is closed source. That's the wrong ideology or something miscolored and sold.
They first took all the code that was possible from the Open Source community — and now they are trying to push it commercially, also to protect against AI. They use that as an excuse. Those are the wrong arguments. I believe that such products will simply fall out over time and unfortunately lose.
When we talk about Open Source, we do want the architecture to be built in such a way that you can really build and integrate things. The adaptation rate is simply the most important asset in software products. The agility must be ensured — and we can only do that by working with open standards. Open Source Software, Security, and Code Ownership
Open Source Software, security, and code ownership
Who actually owns the code we write for customers? And isn't it risky to disclose everything?
LC: If a customer commissions you to build something — who owns it then?
Christoph: Basically, the customer first. We try to educate the customer to do copyleft so that we can also benefit the community with the code. But unfortunately, it depends on the contract.
LC: Are there security risks when making the code available?
Christoph: Of course, there are security concerns — especially regarding domain know-how. You have to vary and see: What can really benefit the community, and what is truly a secret for the company and should not go outside.
Tell us about a moment when your team contributed a fix back to an Open Source project.
There are many, but I'll focus on the last case. We tried out a new product ourselves — Open Source, still in its infancy, but already very advanced. We had a problem and fixed it ourselves. And that's the magic of Open Source.
You have all the possibilities: You can use the fix just for yourself. You can give it back to the community. The community can build on it, maybe make something even better, review it. That means: The best product emerges from many people collaborating and contributing.
When Open Source is not the right choice
We also don't recommend Open Source in every case. Honesty is part of it.
LC: Are there moments when Open Source is not the right answer for a customer?
Christoph: There certainly will be. There are also products that are significantly further in the proprietary area, which might be better suited for the customer. But it depends on the use case. I can't rule it out.
But it depends on the use case. I can't rule it out.
Still, there are clear cases where Open Source is the more economical way — more on that here.
Open Source First: How Everything Started at LEAN-CODERS
To conclude, the personal story behind our decision — and why it was never really a choice for us.
LC: When did you personally first come into contact with Open Source?
Christoph: With free software very early — especially in the area of freeware and shareware. But Open Source per se came into my life at TU Vienna. That's when Linux came into my life, and yes — a very, very great love to this day. I'm still on Linux.
LC: When did you decide that LEAN-CODERS should be Open Source First?
Christoph: Historically, I come from the Microsoft environment. Accordingly, I promoted Microsoft products for many years and also used them with customers.
And there I saw exactly these problems on-site with customers: that they would have liked to have things adapted, that there were some issues in the software. They always exist. And as a developer, you actually want to fix these problems. Unfortunately, I couldn't fix them because there was no access to the code.
And accordingly, it was clear to me: If we offer software, then the best software for the customer — that we also have control over.
That's just the beginning
In the coming weeks, we will gradually release the complete video interview on LinkedIn. Follow us so you don't miss an episode — and share this article if you know someone who still believes Open Source means "free."
