Open source strategy should be owned through a shared operating model, not left to one function alone. The article points to OSPOs as a mechanism for aligning contribution, governance, security, and long-term sustainability across private and public organisations. In practice, that means engineering, security, legal, and procurement need clear roles, with one coordinating office to keep decisions consistent.
How Open Source Ownership Should Be Structured
Open source strategy works best when it is treated as an operating model, not a handoff. Engineering usually owns technical contribution and product fit, security owns risk and control expectations, legal owns licensing and policy boundaries, and procurement helps with supplier and contract discipline. A coordinating office, often an OSPO, gives those functions a shared decision path so the organisation does not fragment its open source posture across disconnected approvals.
That ownership model matters because open source is both a development practice and a governance surface. The team that writes code cannot be the only one deciding policy, and the team that reviews risk cannot be the only one shaping contribution strategy. A shared model creates a single place for contribution rules, dependency hygiene, approval criteria, and escalation when a project becomes strategically important or legally sensitive.
For organisations that manage upstream dependencies or contribute to widely used projects, the operating model should also make accountability explicit. The right question is not which function “controls” open source, but which function owns which decision and how exceptions are resolved. That is where a central office helps: it turns informal coordination into repeatable governance without blocking engineering speed.
Why Shared Ownership Is Better Than Function-by-Function Control
Open source decisions often fail when they are assigned to a single silo. Engineering may optimise for velocity and technical merit, while legal focuses on licence risk, security focuses on dependency exposure, and procurement focuses on supplier terms. If those decisions are made independently, the result is inconsistent policy, delayed releases, or unmanaged risk. A coordinated model creates a common standard for when a project can be adopted, contributed to, or forked.
The practical advantage is consistency. Teams can move quickly when the rules are already agreed, rather than reopening the same debate for every repository or vendor request. This is especially important when contribution choices affect public reputation, code ownership, or long-term maintenance obligations. The shared model also prevents the common failure mode where no one owns the open source portfolio end to end, even though many teams touch it.
When the coordination layer is strong, open source becomes easier to govern at scale. The OSPO pattern is useful because it gives the business one place to set policy, interpret exceptions, and maintain organisational memory. That makes it easier to balance innovation, compliance, and sustainable use of external software.
What Each Team Should Own in Practice
Ownership should be split by decision type, not by prestige. Engineering should own contribution quality, maintainership decisions, dependency selection, and the technical roadmap for projects it depends on. Security should own review criteria for sensitive packages, supply chain controls, secret handling, and response expectations when a project or dependency is compromised. Legal should own licence interpretation, contributor terms, and policy constraints around reuse and distribution.
Procurement becomes relevant when the organisation is buying support, tooling, hosted services, or enterprise subscriptions around open source projects. It should help ensure supplier commitments match the operational and legal reality of how the software is used. The coordinating office then acts as the forum that keeps these roles aligned, especially when a decision crosses boundaries, such as when a widely used package also carries compliance or reputation risk.
A good rule is that no single function should be able to override the others on a material open source decision without an agreed exception path. That keeps contribution, approval, and adoption decisions from drifting into local optimisation. It also gives teams a clear way to escalate when a project is strategically important but operationally risky.
Risk and Threat Considerations
Open source strategy creates exposure when ownership is ambiguous, because weak coordination can leave dependency risk, licensing risk, and supply chain risk unmanaged. If engineering adopts packages without a shared review path, the organisation can inherit compromised code, hidden maintainership issues, or overlooked licence obligations. Attackers also target trusted open source ecosystems because one compromise can cascade across many downstream users.
Failure mechanism: Fragmented ownership lets different teams make incompatible decisions about contribution, approval, and dependency trust, which increases the chance that a risky package, unsafe change, or licence issue slips through without a final accountable owner.
Impact: The organisation can face compromised build pipelines, unplanned remediation work, legal exposure, and slower response when a project or dependency becomes a security event. In practice, governance gaps are often exploited through the trusted software supply chain rather than through the application itself.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and CIS Controls v8 set the technical controls, while ISO/IEC 27001:2022 defines the regulatory obligations.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 | PM-30 — Supply Chain Risk Management Strategy | Open source strategy directly needs supply-chain governance and ownership discipline. |
| SA-12 — Supply Chain Protection | Open source adoption depends on controls over third-party code and dependency trust. | |
| Recommendation — Define a supply chain strategy that assigns open source review, approval, and escalation ownership. Apply supply chain protections to open source intake, contribution, and dependency approval. | ||
| ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | A.5.19 — Information security in supplier relationships | Open source governance often includes third-party components and supplier-like obligations. |
| A.5.21 — Managing information security in the ICT supply chain | Open source strategy is materially shaped by upstream software supply chain assurance. | |
| Recommendation — Set supplier-related security requirements for externally sourced open source dependencies and services. Assess upstream open source provenance and require security assurance for critical dependencies. | ||
| CIS Controls v8 | CIS-15 — Service Provider Management | Open source ecosystems and hosted project services create third-party exposure that needs ownership. |
| Recommendation — Assign service-provider oversight for open source support, hosting, and dependency providers. | ||
Practitioner Guidance
What to prioritise: Define one coordinating owner for the operating model first, then assign decision rights to engineering, security, legal, and procurement. The critical point is not the title of the owner, but whether every material open source decision has a clear path for review and exception handling.
What to verify: Check whether the organisation can answer four questions consistently: who approves contribution, who approves adoption, who owns licence interpretation, and who handles security escalation. If those answers vary by team or project, the model is still informal and will behave inconsistently under pressure.
Practitioner takeaway: The best open source ownership model is federated in expertise but centralised in coordination, because shared decision rights preserve speed while preventing policy drift and unmanaged supply chain risk.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
- Who should own certificate-based security decisions in healthcare when IT, development, legal, and risk teams all have a stake?
- How should security teams prioritise NHI remediation in cloud environments?
- How should security teams govern non-human identities at scale?
- How should security teams govern non-human identities for compliance?
Deepen Your Knowledge
Reviewed and updated by the NHIMG editorial team on September 28, 2026.
NHI Mgmt Group — the #1 independent authority on Non-Human Identity, IAM, and Agentic AI security. nhimg.org
