In the early 2010s, open source software (OSS) generated considerable optimism, but procurement teams still had legitimate concerns about reliability, long-term support, and security.
Today, however, things have changed. Open source platforms now offer enterprise versions that provide the same level of service and compliance you would expect from proprietary alternatives. In fact, even when you pay for proprietary software, 70-90% of all the code in that system is built from open source components.
As the Linux Foundation’s Guide to Open Source Software for Procurement Professionals further explains, the relevant question isn’t whether or not you should use OSS, but how open source code is selected, maintained, and licensed. This article will explain why the rules of thumb that stacked the scales against OSS in the early 2010s no longer apply.
Key Takeaways:
- Open source software can meet the same security, compliance, and scalability requirements as proprietary alternatives, and often offers more transparency.
- Commercial support models, structured service-level agreements (SLAs), and enterprise hosting options are common across enterprise open-source solutions.
- When you account for licensing fees, vendor lock-in, and long-term flexibility, the total cost of ownership tends to be lower for open source.
- Modern enterprise open source platforms combine the benefits of community-driven innovation with enterprise-level accountability.
What the Assumptions Get Wrong About Open Source
Many procurement policies still treat OSS as fundamentally risky, but that’s not actually the case. Below, we break down the assumptions behind the 4 main concerns of procurement pros—security, scalability, total cost of ownership (TCO), and long-term support—and show how open source platforms often outperform their proprietary counterparts.
Security
The assumption: Open source is inherently less secure because the code is publicly visible, making it easier for bad actors to find vulnerabilities.
The modern reality: Code transparency is not a liability. If anything, it’s an asset. Open source projects are transparent, allowing many developers worldwide to review the code. This continuous peer review helps identify and fix vulnerabilities more quickly than in closed-source software, where only the vendor’s team can access the code.
And while many engineers contribute to open source code because of their personal commitment to community principles, cybersecurity companies that want to build a reputation for themselves also regularly review open source code for vulnerabilities. In other words, the resilience of open source code doesn’t rely on arbitrary goodwill alone, but on the same incentives that drive innovation in for-profit organizations.
The result is that assessment platforms built on open source code are entrusted with critical data. For example, TAO’s open source solution has been used by organizations such as the Ministry of Education in Lithuania and the New York City Department of Education, as well as other global ministries running non-compulsory exams and pilot programs as a POC for digital transformation. These deployments demonstrate how open source platforms can meet real-world requirements for security, even in regulated education environments.
Scalability
The assumption: Open source tools are fine for small-scale projects, but they can’t support high-volume use in complex, mission-critical systems.
The modern reality: Much of the infrastructure used online today runs on open source code. For instance, Linux powers the vast majority of public cloud infrastructure, OpenSSL encrypts most web traffic, and various open source databases process billions of transactions every day. Far from being “experimental,” open source code is the very backbone of government agencies, financial institutions, and Fortune 10 enterprises.
Government agencies confirm this. For example, the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) actively promotes OSS across the federal government, writing that, “Open source software is part of the foundation of the digital infrastructure we all rely upon.”
In the regulated assessment space, open platforms already underpin large-scale, high-stakes testing programs. In Italy, for example, national assessments are administered to millions of students using an Enterprise platform built on TAO’s open source foundation.
At this level, scale is typically achieved with managed infrastructure, dedicated support, and ongoing optimization. Many organizations invest in an enterprise solution to handle this complexity and reduce operational risk, especially in high-stakes environments where reliability is critical. Others use the same open source foundation for smaller-scale or less time-sensitive deployments, depending on their internal capabilities.
This highlights an important point: open source provides a proven, scalable foundation, while organizations can choose how they operationalize it based on their risk tolerance, internal capabilities, and scale requirements.
Total cost of ownership
The assumption: Open source is “free now but costly later” because the upfront savings are offset by the hidden costs of integration, customization, and maintenance.
The modern reality: Every time you deploy software, whether open source or proprietary, you have to pay integration and maintenance costs. The difference is how those costs are structured and who gets to set them.
Proprietary platforms bundle licensing fees with limited customization rights and penalties for migration—plus they often have annual escalation clauses. Open source, on the other hand, eliminates the licensing fee entirely. Instead, you get a more transparent cost model in which you invest in implementation, support, and infrastructure on your own terms.
In practice, modern open source software providers also offer enterprise-level packages with commercial support contracts, managed hosting, and professional services while still avoiding vendor lock-in. This allows institutions to evaluate costs using the same framework applied to other technology investments.
Long-term support and accountability
The assumption: If something goes wrong with open source software, you’re on your own.
The modern reality: Open source comes with its own support model, but that doesn’t mean you’re completely on your own. With platforms like TAO, organizations take ownership of their deployment, including hosting and operations, which gives them full control over their environment. That’s a key difference from proprietary software.
At the same time, they are not without resources. Users can rely on active community forums, user documentation, tutorial videos, and shared expertise from other practitioners. For organizations that need additional guidance, TAO also offers paid training and SLA-based support packages, providing access to product expertise and defined response times.
This model is best suited to teams that have internal technical capabilities or trusted IT partners in place. Rather than depending on a vendor for end-to-end management, organizations retain control over how they operate and support their platform.
How Enterprise Services Offer the Best of Both Worlds
Commercial assessment platforms that leverage the same core open source foundation combine characteristics traditionally associated with both open source and proprietary models.
Institutions get the code transparency, community-driven innovation, security, interoperability, and freedom from vendor lock-in that have always been hallmarks of OSS. Yet they also get the commercial support, managed infrastructure, compliance frameworks, and governance of a traditional vendor.
If organizations are going to benefit from this blend, procurement professionals need to update their evaluation frameworks. Rather than focusing on whether a platform is open source or proprietary, procurement teams should ask these questions: Does this platform meet our security and compliance requirements? Is support and accountability reliable? How about migration?
When evaluated against these criteria, open assessment platforms often align closely with institutional priorities because they are designed for transparency, flexibility, and long-term operational control.
It’s Time To Reassess the Assumptions
Procurement decisions should reflect how open source platforms operate today—not outdated assumptions from earlier eras. Modern enterprise-supported open source solutions have matured to meet security, scalability, compliance, and support requirements in regulated public-sector environments.
Thus, legacy procurement frameworks that reflexively discount open source aren’t protecting institutions; they’re limiting them. By excluding platforms that may offer better governance, lower TCO, and greater control, procurement professionals are missing the opportunity to increase the impact of limited resources..
If you’re interested in more information about open source platforms, take a look at these helpful resources on the TAO blog:
- Why Schools and Governments Are Turning To Open Source Assessment Software
- The 3 Best Open Source Item Banks for Digital Assessment with TAO
- The Future of Digital Assessment Software: Why Open Source Wins
FAQs
Is open source software safe to use in government and public sector environments?
Yes, open source is widely used across government infrastructure worldwide. Agencies like CISA actively support open source adoption, and enterprise open source platforms offer the same compliance certifications, security audits, and governance structures as proprietary alternatives. Moreover, open source software is continuously reviewed by the open source community, bolstering its defenses.
How is open source software supported?
Many open source assessment platforms are backed by commercial organizations that offer subscription-based enterprise solutions that include structured support contracts, defined SLAs, managed hosting, and dedicated account management.
Does open source software cost less than proprietary software in the long run?
Usually, yes. Open source eliminates recurring licensing fees and reduces vendor lock-in, giving institutions more control over their long-term costs. When you keep total TCO in mind, including support, infrastructure, and flexibility, open source tends to offer a better deal.