Another one bites the dust as KubeSphere kills open source edition
- Reference: 1754058615
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/08/01/kubesphere_open_source_edition/
- Source link:
An announcement was [1]posted in the project's repository stating: "Effective immediately ... we will suspend the download links for the KubeSphere open source version and cease providing free technical support.
"We are fully aware that this may cause inconvenience to some users, and we sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused. However, we believe that by concentrating our resources, we can provide users with more professional, stable, and comprehensive commercial-grade services and support."
[2]
KubeSphere is "a distributed operating system for cloud-native application management, using Kubernetes as its kernel." It is also, according to the project's website, "a CNCF-certified Kubernetes platform, 100 percent open source, built and improved by the community."
[3]
[4]
Effectively, KubeSphere simplifies the management of Kubernetes, which can be unwieldy when it comes to setup and configuration.
One of the founding members of the KubeSphere team, having left KubeSphere developer QingCloud the previous day, [5]posted some of the possible reasoning behind the move: "In recent years, repeated violations of the open source license – by third parties repackaging and monetizing the project – have caused tangible impact on QingCloud's interests.
[6]
"While the source code remains available under open source norms, discontinuing the out-of-the-box distributions is, in my view, a challenging adjustment for today's collaborative open source ecosystem.
"Still, as someone who once helped steer this journey, I respect the decision."
[7]A year on, Valkey charts path to v9 after break from Redis
[8]Redis 'returns' to open source with AGPL license
[9]How's that open source licensing coming along? That well, huh?
[10]Majority of Redis users considering alternatives after less permissive licensing move
The code's license specifically forbids commercial use of the source without explicit permission or a commercial license.
The Register asked KubeSphere project team to comment, but the company has yet to respond.
In the GitHub post, it appeared to blame the rapid uptake of AI in the tech industry and subsequent changes to the infrastructure layer. So "to adapt to the new era, further enhance product capabilities and service quality, and focus on core technology R&D and the optimization of commercial-grade solutions, after years of planning and careful consideration," the open source edition is for the chop.
[11]
Customers using it (or who were planning to) have been directed to the company's customer service team, who will "tailor a commercial version solution for you, including dedicated technical support, vulnerability fixes, version upgrades, and other value-added services, to ensure your business systems run stably in an efficient and secure environment."
Users are not impressed. One [12]said : "This is without a doubt one of the most shortsighted and damaging business decisions I have seen a company make," declaring the decision a "massive red flag" for any customer using it or considering it for future use.
Another [13]said : "Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but it feels like in the last few years the greed keeps on accelerating, and open source projects keep dying."
"Dying" might be a bit strong. But the business model on which some projects have been based hasn't been looking too well lately. ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://github.com/kubesphere/kubesphere/issues/6550
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aIzklDAeBIxAZGLNCQRCbgAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aIzklDAeBIxAZGLNCQRCbgAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aIzklDAeBIxAZGLNCQRCbgAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://github.com/kubesphere/kubesphere/issues/6557
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aIzklDAeBIxAZGLNCQRCbgAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/15/a_year_of_valkey/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/01/redis_returns_to_open_source/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/24/open_source_licensing/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/20/redis_users_considering_alternatives/
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aIzklDAeBIxAZGLNCQRCbgAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://github.com/kubesphere/kubesphere/issues/6550#issuecomment-3139412274
[13] https://www.reddit.com/r/kubernetes/comments/1mdwzej/comment/n67xx53/
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Kerqing
Two wrongs don't make a Right...
... I agree abusing the trust of FOSS licenses which restrict commercial use and essentially stealing peoples labour is objectionable, but building a community on trust and free access to software for some uses then destroying that trust is not excused by this, and it will likley not be an effective remedy.
So no people should not have 'stolen' the code for commercial projects but taking your ball to go and play with people who will do exactly what you say isn’t going to make you a better person or a better player. In other words this knee jerk reaction seems childish and doomed to failure in commercial terms.
The FOSS core and monetised support or extensions business model, and the free for personal/dev use paid commercial models require more than license terms to enforce them. You need to work in a market that is part of a jurisdiction where your rights will be enforced, detect abuse and deal with it, as well as putting technical barriers in place if you want that to work. I would love to live in a world where giving people access to assets on the internet and trusting them to follow the rules was a safe business model. I am experienced enough and realistic enough to know that we don't live in that world.
Abusing the trust of the community at large because a few bad actors abused the trust of the principal developers is not only not a winning open source business model it is in it's self a misstep.
Also do you hear that keyboard, i think it's being forked.
This could be bad.
I am in two minds about this.
On the one hand you have people who take the free edition and then use it for commercial gain, freeloaders in other words.
On the other you have KubeSphere taking the freely donated efforts of others and now turning the project into a for-profit business using the abuse of the freeloaders as an excuse.
Stuck in the middle are those who have no need for complicated contracts and support options and those who have given the fruit of their labours to KubeSphere and asked for nothing in return.
It seems to me as if there is greed on both sides, harming the FOSS movement and calling into question whether the FOSS system of working is doomed to end in a mess of legal wrangling and giving the proprietary vendors a free hand in what is left of the market.
Maybe there needs to be a new open source licence
>> On the other you have KubeSphere taking the freely donated efforts of others and now turning the project into a for-profit business using the abuse of the freeloaders as an excuse.
The phrase 'open source community' is often bandied around, e.g. the 'community' finds bugs and fixes them. But in truth the part of the community that does the coding and bug fixing is tiny relative to the 'average' users. What I have seen first-hand is that for many people 'the community' means 'somebody else'. That's fine as far as it goes. Not everyone can code or fix bugs or even understand the problems. But there is a difference between somebody who contributes to the community and those who are part of it. Players vs spectators.
Perhaps there is space for a new open source licence. If you contribute in some way, either coding or documentation or producing tutorials or whatever, you get the software for free and open sourced. If you don't, you pay or you get a more restrictive licence.
The problem of funding OSS is not going away.
Meh
Company with product that no one has ever heard of decides that catering to freeloaders is not a viable business plan. Color me something other than shocked.