Published
April 22, 2025
Software-Defined Systems
Open source software powers 96% of all codebases and would cost $8.8 trillion to rebuild, yet just 5% of developers create 96% of its value, a massive imbalance that threatens the foundation of modern technology. This deep dive explores why brilliant engineers give away their best work, the hidden economics of "free" software, and how we can build a sustainable future for the open-source ecosystem that drives innovation across industries.
Published
April 22, 2025
Reading time
6 min read
Author
Fadi Labib

As a software engineer, I have always been fascinated by Open Source Software (OSS). I have relied on OSS since my first "Hello World." I shipped products powered by community code at every job while contributing almost nothing back. That imbalance nagged at me, particularly when I worked alongside renowned OSS contributors on significant projects, such as the Linux Kernel, WineHQ, ROS 2, and a team I managed closely for a long time—the team behind the famous project in the automotive industry, iceoryx. Their talent amazed me, but I kept wondering: what makes brilliant engineers give away their best work?
A significant turning point in my career came when I joined Apex.AI at a very early stage, a company pioneering OSS‑based solutions for automotive safety‑critical applications. This idea was nearly unheard of at the time; yet, the founders' compelling vision of industrializing OSS spoke to me. The experience was exhilarating, and this passion energized our entire team, enabling us to take our solution to the next level and certify it to ISO 26262 ASIL-D, the highest safety level in the automotive industry.
Over time, we have recognized significant challenges within the OSS ecosystem in this domain. Nevertheless, my belief in OSS remained strong, fueling an ongoing curiosity about why engineers and businesses continue to use and contribute to it.
My perspective deepened profoundly during my Executive MBA studies at ESMT Berlin, where I was fortunate to take an insightful course on Open Innovation taught by Linus Dahlander. Although not exclusively about OSS, the course resonated strongly with my experiences, introducing me to valuable frameworks for understanding the broader ecosystem of Open Innovation in which OSS plays a crucial role. I highly recommend following Linus Dahlander and exploring his extensive research for anyone interested in OSS or Open Innovation. His insights have significantly shaped my understanding and unlocked a new domain for me, helping me understand why engineers love OSS.
However, my studies didn't only answer this; they also touched on all business aspects related to it, such as why companies engage in open innovation, the challenges and benefits they encounter, the paradigm shifts they observe, and the business models evolving around open innovation.
A recent Harvard Business School working paper, The Value of Open Source Software, broadened my understanding by putting complex numbers on benefits that had long seemed intangible.
Although the paper does not draw a formal line between Open Source Software (OSS) and "Free" OSS (FOSS), a distinction worth noting because an open licence does not automatically mean zero cost, it nonetheless surfaces several critical insights:
Drawing from this and related readings, several key takeaways stood out to me:
While OSS development in embedded and edge computing has traditionally lagged behind other tech sectors, we see recent initiatives are closing the gap. Collaborative projects like Eclipse Software Defined Vehicle (proudly a member), Eclipse IoT , and LF Edge are fostering greater community engagement and innovation.
Historically, real-time operating systems (RTOS) in these domains were predominantly proprietary. However, this is changing with initiatives like The Zephyr Project and Eclipse ThreadX , among other notable projects.
On the hardware front, open architecture from RISC-V International and Arm 's (our partner company) OSS initiatives, with platforms like WebAssembly (WASM), are promoting code portability across diverse devices.
Moreover, the explosive growth of AI is fundamentally reshaping the OSS ecosystem. Collectively, these developments signify a promising shift towards a more open and collaborative future in embedded technology.
Originally posted on LinkedIn
Keep reading

Open source software powers 96% of all codebases and would cost $8.8 trillion to rebuild, yet just 5% of developers create 96% of its value. Google Test alone saves companies billions.Imagine 2,000 companies each burning money to build their own testing framework, then to maintain it. That's billions down the drain, solving the same problem thousands of times. Meanwhile, bugs caught early save hundreds of thousands per year, and engineers get to build actual products instead of reinventing basic tools. Tech giants aren't sharing code out of generosity, they've figured out that giving away millions in development costs them less than the alternative.

As carmakers announce their transformation into "Software-Defined Vehicles", a revealing question emerges: Why don't we call smartphones "Software-Defined Phones"? The answer exposes a fundamental truth about the automotive industry's struggle to catch up with technology that mobile devices mastered two decades ago. While smartphones were born in the software era, designed from inception as platforms where apps and OS updates define the user experience—traditional automakers are hardware companies desperately trying to think software-first. The "software-defined" prefix isn't just marketing; it's a need for industrial transformation, signaling a pivot that mobile companies never needed because software centricity was self-evident from their beginning. As vehicles evolve into "computers on wheels", they're essentially revealing that the SDV label represents not innovation, but an industry's public acknowledgment that its fundamental assumptions about value creation were wrong.

The automotive industry's software-defined vehicle ambitions face a certification deadlock: companies waste resources duplicating qualification of the same foundational tools (operating systems, toolchains, LLVM) that everyone depends on, forcing costly choices between self-qualifying everything, losing competitive edge, or accepting vendor lock-in. The solution is collaborative open-source qualification of shared foundations—pool resources on non-differentiating infrastructure while competing on actual product innovation.