## Why Do Some Companies Have a Whole Team Just for Open Source?

Most organizations depend on open source software but never formalize how they use it. Developers pull in libraries without a consistent view of licenses. Legal finds compliance gaps late. Security can't see the full dependency picture. Contributing back is ad hoc. An Open Source Program Office (OSPO) is the function that steps in to coordinate all of that: strategy, policy, compliance, and community engagement. It doesn't replace developers or teams; it provides the structure and expertise so the organization can use open source effectively and responsibly.

In this article I explain what an OSPO is, why organizations create one, how it works conceptually, and how it fits with compliance, security, and community. By the end you'll have a clear mental model: centralized expertise with distributed execution.

## What an OSPO Is

An Open Source Program Office (OSPO) is a centralized function that manages open source strategy, policy, compliance, and community engagement. It coordinates open source activities so they align with business goals and legal requirements. Spell out "Open Source Program Office" the first time; after that, "OSPO" is fine.

A useful analogy is a city planning department. Developers and teams still choose which projects to use and contribute to. The OSPO makes sure those choices fit policy, license obligations, and security expectations. Another analogy: a restaurant with many suppliers. Someone has to track ingredients, ensure safety, manage supplier relationships, and coordinate sharing recipes back. An OSPO does the equivalent for software: tracking components, ensuring license and security compliance, managing community relationships, and coordinating contributions.

An OSPO usually covers several areas:

* **Policy development.** Guidelines for how the organization uses, distributes, and contributes to open source.
* **License compliance.** Making sure use complies with license terms (attribution, source sharing, commercial restrictions, and so on).
* **Security management.** Tracking open source components, monitoring vulnerabilities, and coordinating response.
* **Contribution management.** Code review, legal approval, and community engagement so contributions can happen smoothly.
* **Education and training.** Helping developers understand licenses, best practices, and contribution workflows.
* **Strategic planning.** Aligning open source work with business goals and key communities.

OSPOs look different by organization. Some are full-time teams; others are virtual, with people from legal, engineering, and product. Some start as a single lead. Structure depends on size, how much open source you use, and what you can invest.

## Why OSPOs Exist

Open source usage has grown from a few projects to hundreds of dependencies per product. That scale created problems that scattered teams could not solve alone.

**License compliance.** Licenses differ: some require attribution, some require sharing source, some restrict commercial use. Without someone tracking what you use and distribute, you risk violating terms and creating legal exposure. An OSPO brings the expertise and processes to keep compliance under control.

**Security.** Open source components can have vulnerabilities. When a critical library is compromised, you need to know where it's used and how to respond. Without a central view of dependencies, that work is slow and inconsistent. An OSPO coordinates tracking, tooling, and response.

**Strategic alignment.** Many organizations want to contribute back: to improve software they rely on, build reputation, or attract talent. Contributing requires legal sign-off, quality bar, and some community savvy. Without a central function, contributions are random and may not support business goals. An OSPO helps prioritize and unblock contributions.

**Knowledge fragmentation.** One team figures out a license; another finds a security tool; another builds ties to a community. If that knowledge stays local, everyone reinvents the wheel. An OSPO acts as a hub so practices and lessons spread.

As open source became critical and regulation (and customer demand) pushed for more transparency, ad hoc management stopped being enough. OSPOs emerged as the place where governance, compliance, and strategy come together.

## How OSPOs Work

The core mechanism is centralized expertise with distributed execution. The OSPO sets frameworks and provides tools and knowledge; teams make day-to-day decisions within those frameworks.

Conceptually, three layers work together. First, the OSPO defines policies: what’s allowed for license compliance, security, contributions, and community engagement. Teams operate inside those boundaries and can ask the OSPO when something is unclear. Second, the OSPO supports tooling and workflows: software composition analysis, license checks, vulnerability tracking, contribution approval flows. That lets many teams manage open source without each building their own stack. Third, the OSPO holds and shares knowledge: license nuances, security practices, community norms. Training, docs, and internal communities reduce duplicate learning.

The OSPO also coordinates with other functions. Legal owns license interpretation; the OSPO turns that into developer-facing policy. Security owns vulnerability response; the OSPO helps with visibility and process. Engineering owns implementation; the OSPO makes contribution and compliance paths clear. Business leaders set strategy; the OSPO aligns open source work with it.

Result: the OSPO scales by enabling teams to act on their own for routine cases and escalating only when legal, security, or strategy require it.

```mermaid
flowchart TB
    subgraph OSPO["OSPO (centralized expertise)"]
        Policy[Policy & guidelines]
        Tools[Tools & workflows]
        Knowledge[Training & knowledge]
    end
    subgraph Teams["Teams (distributed execution)"]
        Dev[Engineering]
        Legal[Legal]
        Security[Security]
    end
    Policy --> Dev
    Policy --> Legal
    Tools --> Dev
    Tools --> Security
    Knowledge --> Dev
    OSPO <--> Teams
```

## Key Relationships

OSPOs sit at the intersection of several concepts.

**Open source compliance.** Compliance programs ensure that use and distribution meet license obligations. An OSPO often leads or deeply supports that program: tracking components, interpreting licenses, and managing distribution. It’s the place where compliance becomes operational.

**Software Bill of Materials (SBOM).** An [SBOM](/blog/what-x/what-is-sbom/) lists the components in your software, including open source. OSPOs use SBOMs to see what’s in use, feed compliance and security processes, and improve supply chain visibility.

**Security and vulnerability management.** OSPOs work with security teams on open source vulnerabilities: which systems are affected, how to respond, and how to work with upstream projects. The OSPO doesn’t replace security; it connects open source visibility and process to the security function.

**Foundations and communities.** OSPOs manage relationships with foundations and key projects: memberships, contributions, and representation. Those connections support strategic use of open source.

**Developer relations.** OSPOs own policy and process for contributions; developer relations often owns community outreach and engagement. They work together so contributions are both allowed and effective.

**Legal and IP.** Legal advises on licenses, contribution agreements, and IP. The OSPO turns that advice into policies and workflows developers can follow.

**Procurement and vendors.** When you buy software that includes open source, the OSPO can define what you need from vendors (e.g., SBOMs, license info) and how procurement checks it.

## Trade-offs and Limitations

**Benefits.** Centralizing open source expertise reduces the need for every team to become experts in licenses and compliance. Policies and tools cut legal and security risk. Shared processes avoid duplicate work. Strategy and community engagement can be intentional instead of accidental. The OSPO becomes a place where the organization learns and improves its open source practice.

**Costs and limitations.** An OSPO needs dedicated capacity; small orgs might have a part-time lead or virtual team. Central coordination adds some overhead (teams consult the OSPO instead of deciding alone); good OSPOs reduce that with clear policy and self-service tools. Shifting culture toward more structured open source use takes time and leadership support. OSPOs focus on open source; you still need other functions for proprietary software, vendors, and internal tooling. The ecosystem changes fast, so OSPOs must keep updating their knowledge. And an OSPO does not guarantee compliance; teams still have to follow policy and use the tools.

**When an OSPO might not be the focus.** If you use very little open source, a light compliance process may be enough. Very early-stage companies might treat a full OSPO as premature, though good habits early help later. If you don’t distribute software (e.g., pure SaaS with no customer-side distribution), compliance can be simpler. Under tight resource constraints, you might start with a part-time role or a small set of policies and grow from there.

## Common Misconceptions

**"OSPOs are only for large companies."** Size varies. Large orgs often have dedicated OSPO teams; smaller ones use a part-time lead or a virtual team. The function scales with need and resources.

**"OSPOs restrict open source use."** Their job is to make use safe and repeatable. That means clear policy, streamlined approvals, and self-service where possible so teams can use and contribute to open source without unnecessary friction.

**"OSPOs only do legal compliance."** Compliance is core, but OSPOs also work on security, strategy, community, and knowledge sharing. They’re a governance function, not only a legal one.

**"OSPOs replace developer judgment."** They set guardrails. Developers still choose libraries and designs; the OSPO ensures those choices fit policy and that compliance and contribution paths exist.

**"OSPOs guarantee perfect compliance."** They provide policy, tools, and support. Compliance still depends on teams following that policy and using the tools. It’s a shared responsibility.

**"OSPOs only care about consuming open source."** They also enable contributing: approval flows, community engagement, and alignment with business strategy. Consumption and contribution both sit in the OSPO’s scope.

**"OSPOs are a cost center with no business value."** They reduce legal and security risk, enable strategic contributions, help with talent and reputation, and make open source use more efficient. The value is in risk reduction and capability, not only direct revenue.

## Conclusion

An OSPO coordinates open source so the organization can use it effectively and responsibly. It doesn’t replace teams or developers; it provides the structure, expertise, and processes they need. The mental model to keep is centralized expertise with distributed execution: the OSPO defines policy, provides tools, and shares knowledge; teams make daily decisions within that frame and escalate when it matters. As open source and regulatory pressure grow, that coordination becomes essential. An OSPO turns ad hoc open source use into something you can scale, comply with, and align with strategy.

## Next Steps

* **Compliance framing.** [OpenChain](/blog/what-x/what-is-openchain/) is a standard for open source compliance programs. Understanding it shows how OSPOs often structure compliance work.
* **Visibility into components.** [What is an SBOM](/blog/what-x/what-is-sbom/) explains how OSPOs use SBOMs to track open source and manage supply chain visibility.
* **OSPO practice.** The [TODO Group][todo-group] publishes guides, case studies, and best practices for running an OSPO.
* **Security context.** [OpenSSF](/blog/what-x/what-is-openssf/) focuses on open source security; OSPOs often work with OpenSSF initiatives and similar efforts.
* **Curated resources.** [A List of OSPO Resources]({{< ref "a-list-of-ospo-resources" >}}) curates guides, tools, communities, and maturity models for starting and running an OSPO.

To go deeper: OSPO maturity models describe how the function evolves from compliance-focused to strategic. Case studies from the [TODO Group][todo-group] and others show how different orgs implement the coordination model. Understanding tooling (composition analysis, license scanning, vulnerability databases, contribution workflows) shows how centralized expertise supports many teams at once.

## References

* [TODO Group][todo-group], for OSPO resources, best practices, and community.
* [OpenChain][openchain], for the open source compliance standard many OSPOs use.
* [Linux Foundation OSPO Guide][lf-ospo], for guidance on starting and running an OSPO.
* [OSPO Alliance][ospo-alliance], for resources and community around OSPOs.
* [A List of OSPO Resources]({{< ref "/blog/list-x/a-list-of-ospo-resources/index.md" >}}), for curated guides, tools, and communities.

[todo-group]: https://todogroup.org/
[openchain]: https://www.openchainproject.org/
[lf-ospo]: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/resources/open-source-guides/starting-an-open-source-program-office/
[ospo-alliance]: https://ospo-alliance.org/