Jim Zemlin on taking a 'portfolio approach' to Linux Foundation projects:
The Linux Foundation has become something of a misnomer through the years. It has extended far beyond its roots as the steward of the Linux kernel, emerging as a sprawling umbrella outfit for a thousand open source projects spanning cloud infrastructure, security, digital wallets, enterprise search, fintech, maps, and more.
Last month, the OpenInfra Foundation — best known for OpenStack — became the latest addition to its stable, further cementing the Linux Foundation's status as a "foundation of foundations."
The Linux Foundation emerged in 2007 from the amalgamation of two Linux-focused not-for-profits: the Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) and the Free Standards Group (FSG). With founding members such as IBM, Intel, and Oracle, the Foundation's raison d'être was challenging the "closed" platforms of that time — which basically meant doubling down on Linux in response to Windows' domination.
[...] Zemlin has led the charge at the Linux Foundation for some two decades, overseeing its transition through technological waves such as mobile, cloud, and — more recently — artificial intelligence. Its evolution from Linux-centricity to covering just about every technological nook is reflective of how technology itself doesn't stand still — it evolves and, more importantly, it intersects.
"Technology goes up and down — we're not using iPods or floppy disks anymore," Zemlin explained to TechCrunch in an interview during KubeCon in London last week. "What I realized early on was that if the Linux Foundation were to become an enduring body for collective software development, we needed to be able to bet on many different forms of technology."
This is what Zemlin refers to as a "portfolio approach," similar to how a company diversifies so it's not dependent on the success of a single product. Combining multiple critical projects under a single organization enables the Foundation to benefit from vertical-specific expertise in networking or automotive-grade Linux, for example, while tapping broader expertise in copyright, patents, data privacy, cybersecurity, marketing, and event organization.
Being able to pool such resources across projects is more important than ever, as businesses contend with a growing array of regulations such as the EU AI Act and Cyber Resilience Act. Rather than each individual project having to fight the good fight alone, they have the support of a corporate-like foundation backed by some of the world's biggest companies.
"At the Linux Foundation, we have specialists who work in vertical industry efforts, but they're not lawyers or copyright experts or patent experts. They're also not experts in running large-scale events, or in developer training," Zemlin said. "And so that's why the collective investment is important. We can create technology in an agile way through technical leadership at the project level, but then across all the projects have a set of tools that create long-term sustainability for all of them collectively."
[...] While AI is inarguably a major step-change both for the technology realm and society, it has also pushed the concept of "open source" into the mainstream arena in ways that traditional software hasn't — with controversy in hot pursuit.
Meta, for instance, has positioned its Llama brand of AI models as open source, even though they decidedly are not by most estimations. This has also highlighted some of the challenges of creating a definition of open source AI that everyone is happy with, and we're now seeing AI models with a spectrum of "openness" in terms of access to code, datasets, and commercial restrictions.
The Linux Foundation, already home to the LF AI & Data Foundation, which houses some 75 projects, last year published the Model Openness Framework (MOF), designed to bring a more nuanced approach to the definition of open source AI. The Open Source Initiative (OSI), stewards of the "open source definition," used this framework in its own open source AI definition.
"Most models lack the necessary components for full understanding, auditing, and reproducibility, and some model producers use restrictive licenses whilst claiming that their models are 'open source,'" the MOF paper authors wrote at the time.
And so the MOF serves a three-tiered classification system that rates models on their "completeness and openness," with regards to code, data, model parameters, and documentation.
It's basically a handy way to establish how "open" a model really is by assessing which components are public, and under what licenses. Just because a model isn't strictly "open source" by one definition doesn't mean that it isn't open enough to help develop safety tools that reduce hallucinations, for example — and Zemlin says it's important to address these distinctions.
"I talk to a lot of people in the AI community, and it's a much broader set of technology practitioners [compared to traditional software engineering]," Zemlin said. "What they tell me is that they understand the importance of open source meaning 'something' and the importance of open source as a definition. Where they get frustrated is being a little too pedantic at every layer. What they want is predictability and transparency and understanding of what they're actually getting and using."
Chinese AI darling DeepSeek has also played a big part in the open source AI conversation, emerging with performant, efficient open source models that upended how the incumbent proprietary players such as OpenAI plan to release their own models in the future.
But all this, according to Zemlin, is just another "moment" for open source.
"I think it's good that people recognize just how valuable open source is in developing any modern technology," he said. "But open source has these moments — Linux was a moment for open source, where the open source community could produce a better operating system for cloud computing and enterprise computing and telecommunications than the biggest proprietary software company in the world. AI is having that moment right now, and DeepSeek is a big part of that."
[...] But however its vast array of projects came to fruition, there's no ignoring the elephant in the room: The Linux Foundation is no longer all about Linux, and it hasn't been for a long time. So should we ever expect a rebrand into something a little more prosaic, but encompassing — like the Open Technology Foundation?
Don't hold your breath.
"When I wear Linux Foundation swag into a coffee shop, somebody will often say, 'I love Linux' or 'I used Linux in college,'" Zemlin said. "It's a powerful household brand, and it's pretty hard to move away from that. Linux itself is such a positive idea, it's so emblematic of truly impactful and successful 'open source.'"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by canopic jug on Tuesday April 22 2025, @09:59AM
The Linux Foundation is no longer all about Linux, and it hasn't been for a long time.
Well, that's at least one point which is accurate in all that drivel from m$ Zemlkn. The "Linux" foundation (LF) now spends less than 2% of its budget on Linux [locals.com]. Furthermore, and far worse, it avoids defending the kernel against license infringement, which is now rampant. The license infringement has become so commonplace, especially among LF members, it is now to the point where Bruce Perens had to comment about the LF having become a GPL Infringers' Club.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2025, @10:37AM (2 children)
Microsoft is in direct competition to all the world's Linux distros. Cisco would be stupid to let Huawei on its board. Likewise Ford would be smart enough to let Geely Automobile Holdings into its board room. Yet, Zemlin, who's wife has ties to Microsoft, opens the doors to the foundation's worst long time enemy...
That's all on top of not lifting a finger to either promote or defend Linux or its licensing.
(Score: 3, Informative) by shrewdsheep on Tuesday April 22 2025, @12:56PM (1 child)
A long time ago (> 10 yrs) corporations started to enter the Linux foundation and squeeze out the remaining code contributors and advocates. Since then it has been a servant of corporate interests and should be treated as such. They do pay Linux, though, so that makes them only 99% evil. Nota bene, that's still 1% removed from M$.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2025, @03:21PM
pay Linux -> pay Linus