Why Companies “Democratise” Artificial Intelligence: The Case of Open Source Software Donations

The LF AI & Data Foundation was founded in March 2018 as the LF Deep Learning Foundation and rebranded as the LF AI Foundation in May 2019, broadening its scope to encompass various AI sub-fields. In October 2020, it merged with the ODPi, an organisation promoting a big data software ecosystem. The foundation subsequently rebranded as the LF AI & Data Foundation, acknowledging the vital role of data in AI R&D. At the point of data collection (October 2022), the foundation had 51 member companies from North America, Europe, and East Asia. It hosted 42 OSS projects that had been donated by diverse organisations, including startups (e.g., AI Squared), research institutes (e.g., the Beijing Academy of AI), consortia (e.g. ONNX), management consultancies (e.g., McKinsey & Co.), and technology giants (e.g., IBM, Samsung, and Tencent). When a company seeks to donate an OSS project to the LF AI & Data Foundation, they must be a member organisation of the LF or be endorsed by a member and submit their proposal for review by the technical advisory council (TAC). The TAC comprises representatives from the various projects at the foundation and premier member companies, who vote on the approval of donation proposals. The LF AI & Data Foundation segregates business and technical governance of hosted OSS projects, ensuring that developers retain technical control in their projects whilst the foundation assumes responsibility for funding, marketing, and license compliance, among others, and enforces open community governance (Dolan,, 2023).

The PyTorch Foundation was established in September 2022 to host the popular PyTorch deep learning framework that had been donated by Meta (PyTorch,, 2023). Its mission is to “driv[e] the adoption of AI tooling by fostering and sustaining an ecosystem of open source, vendor-neutral projects integrated with PyTorch” and “to democratise state-of-the-art tools, libraries, and other components to make these innovations accessible to everyone” (PyTorch,, 2023). The PyTorch Foundation similarly maintains a separation between business and technical governance for the PyTorch project and wider ecosystem, with the PyTorch project retaining its technical governance structure while the foundation is responsible for funding, hosting expenses, and events, among others. The PyTorch Foundation manages the project’s assets, including its website, GitHub repository, and social media accounts, and enforces open community governance. Upon its launch, it formed a governing board comprising representatives from its initial members: AMD, Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, Hugging Face, IBM, Intel, Meta, Microsoft, and Nvidia (PyTorch,, 2023). The governing board members shape PyTorch’s strategic direction through voting rights, contribute to the project’s technical development and roadmap, and gain benefits such as early feature access and increased visibility in the PyTorch ecosystem, while being expected to actively support and promote PyTorch’s growth and adoption.

This study comprises two sources of primary data and two sourcs of secondary data. First, two types of secondary data were collected from the Internet for 43 AI OSS donations to the LF (42 donations to the LF AI & Data Foundation and 1 donation to the PyTorch Foundation). First, pre-donation technical pitches to the TAC were collected from the LF AI & Data Foundation wiki page (LFAI&Data,, 2023). Second, post-donation blog posts by the LF and respective companies were collected from the LF AI & Data Foundation website and through Google search queries in the format of “[company name] + [project name] + [LF AI & Data Foundation]. This yielded 40 presentations (95%) and 37 (88%) blog posts for the 42 projects donated to the LF AI & Data Foundation. It was not possible to collect a pre-donation technical pitch for the PyTorch donation because, as an inaugural project of its namesake foundation, it did not follow this process. Blog posts were accessed via the PyTorch Foundation website and Google search queries using the aforementioned format. A full list of the 43 OSS projects, donors, and respective document links is provided in Table LABEL:tab:donations-projects.

Subsequently, primary data was collected through questionnaires and 12 semi-structured interviews with ten project maintainers who had donated the project and two foundation employees. First, a brief questionnaire was distributed to the maintainers to gather information on the donation process, incentives, and outcomes, as well as to recruit interviewees. It was distributed via the LF AI & Data Foundation’s mailing list and to the PyTorch maintainers via the Executive Director of the PyTorch Foundation, resulting in 16 responses from the maintainers of 16 projects at the LF AI & Data Foundation and 0 responses from the maintainers of PyTorch (in total, 37% of the 43 projects). Ten maintainers were recruited for interviews through the questionnaire, who worked for 9 companies, diverse by geography, size, and sector (see Table 3). In addition, the Executive Director of the foundations (N.B. same person) and a LF AI & Data Foundation project coordinator were interviewed. The 12 interviews lasted between 30 and 60 minutes and were semi-structured, combining standardised questions about the donation process with tailored questions based on their questionnaire responses, adding depth to the quantitative findings in Figure 1. The interviews were conducted digitally, and were recorded to aid analysis and to enhance the validity of the research findings (Yin,, 2018).

Thematic analysis was applied to systematically identify commonalities, patterns, and relationships in the qualitative data (Cruzes and Dyba,, 2011). A systematic six-step procedure was followed to enhance the reliability of this analysis (Braun and Clarke,, 2006). The initial coding procedure involved an integrated approach, combining the inductive coding (Charmaz,, 2006) and a deductive coding informed by prior work on incentives that exist at the levels of individual developers (see Table 1) and organisations (see Table 2). This approach allowed for the identification of both commonalities with prior work and novel findings concerning open source AI democratisation efforts. The coding was conducted by the author until reaching saturation (Charmaz,, 2006), then merged codes into 25 distinct themes (i.e., social, economic, and technological incentives at the level of individual developers and companies shown in Table 4). To address the limitation of single-author analysis, each step was rigorously documented, and the results were member-checked with the interviewees and discussed with two academic advisers (Edwards and Holland,, 2013; King,, 2009). Furthermore, the interviewees were invited to review the quotes attributed to their anonymised IDs and to state their attribution preference, ensuring consent for the inclusion of statements. Only three interviewees proposed revisions (e.g., to enhance specificity), indicating the resonance of the findings with the practitioners.

In social science research, it is critical that one as a researcher engages in critical self-evaluation of the one’s positionality and disiplinary conventions, and how they may influence one’s research, from its initial design through to the reporting of and presentation of research findings (Finlay,, 2002). The exercise of reflexivity was particularly important for the credibility of this study, given the author’s affiliation with the LF as a research contractor. A social identity map was employed as a tool to encourage reflection on positionality and to address potential biases in three areas (Jacobson and Mustafa,, 2019). First, at the outset, it was used to consider the effects of the LF affiliation on data access and potential threats to reproducibility, recognising that the LF affiliation likely increased the willingness of foundation staff and project maintainers to participate in the study. To enhance reproducibility, the data collection strategy relied primarily on publicly available information (e.g., mailing lists) and information sheets sent with invitations explicitly stated the independent purpose and funding for the research. Second, to minimise social desirability bias in interview responses, the research’s independent purpose and funding mentioned in the information sheet were explained to interviewees at the beginning of each interview. Third, a journal was maintained during the thematic analysis to document coding choices, and the findings were shared with two academic advisers to review the interpretations. While these actions contribute to enhancing the credibility and reliability of the research process, it must be acknowledged that it is difficult, if not impossible, to perform bias-free research and, therefore, it should be understood as an imperfect, yet best-effort attempt by the author to control for and mitigate potential biases in the research process (Jacobson and Mustafa,, 2019).

At the individual level, social incentives are as a significant driver for OSS donations. Two key themes stood out: reciprocity and personal reputation. Many developers expressed a deep-seated ethos of ‘giving back” to the community that supports their work. For instance, Respondent A (BeyondML) stated:

The vast majority of proprietary models and software in data science and machine learning are built on open source, so being part of that and contributing to that is really important to me personally and to our company.

This sentiment was echoed by Respondent H (NNStreamer), who noted that their donation was “just for our own satisfaction” as OSS users and developers. These responses highlight the personal investment many developers have in the OSS ecosystem and their desire to contribute to its growth and sustainability. Personal reputation is also a significant social incentive, with successful donations to major foundations representing an opportunity for individual developers to enhance their standing in the OSS community. For example, Respondent J (ONNX-MLIR) explained that having a project accepted by a major foundation provides credibility among peers and brings developers like himself closer to their “dream of having your big open source project with 1000s of stars.” Respondent I (ONNX-MLIR) added that improving one’s reputation also leads to career benefits, as one can be hired based on one’s reputation, and that individuals’ aspirations align with company’s goals to improve their corporate reputation as an OSS-friendly workplace.

Two primary economic incentives at the individual level are career benefits and access to foundation support services.The reputational gains from OSS contributions often translate into tangible career benefits. For example, respondent I (ONNX-MLIR) noted that achievements in OSS projects make developers more competitive in the AI job market, as their expertise at the intersection of software engineering and AI becomes both known and knowable in the wider open source AI ecosystem. This enhanced visibility and credibility in the job market creates a powerful incentive for individuals to support OSS donations. As mentioned above, Respondent I (ONNX-MLIR) pointed out that these incentives of individual developers also align with organisational goals of fostering a skilled workforce, attracting and recruiting competitive AI talent, and improving their corporate reputation among OSS developers.

The desire to harness foundation support services is another important economic incentive. Many developers viewed foundation support as a means to address challenges faced by maintainers in managing projects alongside their full-time employment. 87% of respondents claimed this support was important for them (see Figure 1). Respondent F (KServe) elaborated on this point:

We, as developers, don’t have a lot of time for [outreach and marketing]. We sought to benefit from support services, such as outreach to new contributors and marketing.

Similarly, Respondent H (NNStreamer) sought marketing support to increase project visibility and to attract external developers. These examples illustrate how foundations are perceived to provide resources that individual maintainers often lack or cannot secure within their own companies, which in turn helps to enhance the growth of their OSS projects.

Technological incentives at the individual level include ensuring project sustainability and enabling the use of collaboration tools. Project sustainability is a significant concern for maintainers. Respondent G (Ludwig) provided a compelling example, describing how he donated his project to ensure its survival following organisational restructuring and his personal departure from the company. He viewed the transition to a foundation as an effective strategy to ensure the project’s continuation. This case demonstrates how personal attachment to projects, which he described as his “baby”, can drive individuals to seek sustainable governance models for their OSS projects, especially when their affiliation with the company comes to an end. It also highlights the use of OSS donations as a mechanism to preserve source code that might otherwise be lost due to corporate changes or neglect.

The ability to use preferred collaboration tools is another technological incentive. Respondents D and E (Kedro) explained that transitioning the project to the LF AI & Data Foundation made it easier to use tools like Slack and Discord, which were either forbidden or difficult to get approval for at their company. As Respondent E (Kedro) explained, “It untied our hands from our own bureaucracy.” They elaborated that this freedom from corporate constraints concerning collaboration tools not only enhances developer productivity and satisfaction but also aligns with broader organisational goals of fostering innovation and efficiency, thus representing a win-win scenario for them.

At the organisational level, three primary social incentives emerged: adopting open governance, reciprocating to the OSS ecosystem, and building the company’s reputation. The adoption of open governance upon donating a project to a foundation is a salient incentive, with 81% of respondents reporting it as important. This change in governance model is viewed as a structural enabler for downstream goals. For example, Detakin’s press release highlighted this incentive:

The LF AI & Data provides a vendor-neutral governance structure that can help the project grow broad industry collaboration. Even more importantly, becoming a LF AI & Data project ensures that OpenLineage can never belong to a company.

Similarly, Lyft emphasised the importance of a “neutral holding ground” when donating both Amundsen and Flyte. These statements underscore the perceived value of neutral governance in fostering collaboration and ensuring the independence of projects.

Similar to individuals, reciprocity to the OSS ecosystem is a key social incentive at the organisational level. Several respondents cited the critical importance of OSS dependencies in their companies’ proprietary products and services, and perceived the donation of their OSS project as one way to “give back”, as explained by Respondent A (BeyondML). In a similar vein, Respondent C (Elyra) underscored the impact of OSS for advances in AI as a reason for why he champions giving back to the ecosystem:

The democratisation of AI software is really what is helping industry advance. If you look back like 10-20 years ago, it was very hard and you needed to have a specific set of skills to be able to even build a very simple model. Today with all the tools and stuff, it’s much easier.

Respondent C (Elyra) explained that their team’s decision to donate Elyra stemmed in part from their desire to play their part in advancing industry. This sentiment was echoed in several companies’ post-donation press releases, framing their donations as acts of AI democratisation. For instance, Uber stated that by donating Pyro, it hoped “to facilitate greater opportunities for researchers worldwide and [to] make deep learning and Bayesian modelling more accessible.”

Building corporate reputation emerged as the third significant social incentive at the organisational level. Many respondents explained they hoped that the reputation of the LF AI & Data would enhance their company’s credibility in the open source AI ecosystem, with 75% of respondents reporting it as important. This incentive was particularly strong for startups and companies without an established reputation in AI. Respondent A (BeyondML) explained:

One of the things that we hoped to get from the LF is its name recognition, obviously just about every developer in the world knows about the LF or knows the term Linux. So having that kind of badge, if you will, immediately gives you a level of credibility with your project.

Respondents D and E (Kedro) echoed this sentiment, stating in their pre-donation pitch that they “would like to leverage the initial marketing announcements to build credibility in their technical and product-related capability”. Subsequently, in the post-donation press release, their company stated:

It’s a substantial step forward for our organisation on our open source journey. The consultancy sector has traditionally been highly protective of intellectual property, but it’s clear that open, collaborative innovation will help power the next phase for analytics technology.

These findings highlight three key social incentives driving organisational decisions to donate AI OSS projects. The adoption of open governance emerges as a key structural enabler for fostering collaboration and ensuring project independence. Reciprocity to the OSS ecosystem reflects companies’ recognition of their dependence on open source technologies and their desire to contribute to industry advancement. Additionally, the opportunity to enhance corporate reputation, particularly for less established companies, serves as a salient motivator. These social incentives are strategically important for companies seeking to position themselves favourably within the open source AI ecosystem.

Several economic incentives at the organisational level inform the decision to donate OSS projects, including attracting external contributors, reducing development costs, diversifying project funding, and harnessing foundation support services. Indeed, being able to attract new contributors to their project is a critical incentive for OSS donations, with 100% respondents reporting it as important. Respondent J (ONNX-MLIR) described OSS donations as a strategic trade-off, where companies exchange full control of their OSS project for the aspired for benefits of distributed development involving a community of contributors. He noted the self-interested logic:

We continue doing the same work as we would if it wasn’t an open source project, but there’s this expectation that we’re going to benefit from a community helping us achieve our own goals.

Respondent G (Ludwig) explained that above all it is beneficial for attracting contributors from other companies, who “prefer not to contribute to projects that are started by companies that could be competitors. They don’t trust it as fully open source if it was started by Uber, Google, Facebook, or whatever company.” Meanwhile, Respondent B (Elyra) provided a more nuanced view:

In reality, in all the projects that I’ve seen, they are still driven by the main inventors. Open governance just means that the feedback comes from additional contributors … It’s more like a community project.

However, respondents cautioned that changing the governance model does not guarantee more or useful external contributions. Respondent D (Kedro) explained she had rejected pull requests “because they were not up to scratch”, while Respondent G (Ludwig) discussed the role of mentorship in training external developers to become effective contributors, which he highlighted requires the company to invest time and money.

Diversification of funding is another significant economic incentive. For example, respondent E (Kedro) discussed the relevance of client concerns about the financial dependence on the host company:

Clients would ask, ’What will happen if your team does not exist tomorrow?’ They were afraid that if we left the code, they wouldn’t be able to get new versions and then it would become unmaintained.

Respondent D (Kedro) speculated that the only reason they were able to convince their senior management to approve the open-sourcing of Kedro was due to this client pressure. In addition, some companies seek to attract or increase external investment in their project. Several respondents saw this as a primary reason for Meta’s donation of PyTorch, speculating that members of the newly founded governing board of the PyTorch Foundation would likely invest more resources in PyTorch than they did before.

Harnessing foundation support services also emerged as a significant economic incentive at the organisational level, with 87% of respondents reporting it as important. For example, Respondent A (BeyondML) described the resources and infrastructure provided by foundations as “stability offerings” that could help scale and sustain projects beyond the means of their startup, thus making OSS donations an attractive option for sustainable project growth.

At the organisational level, several technological incentives were identified, including ecosystem integration and adoption, software improvements, faster innovation, and influencing industry standards. Respondents highlighted that joining a foundation offered ecosystem benefits. For example, respondent C (Elyra) noted:

Together with [open governance], we thought being in an ecosystem of other machine learning and AI projects would foster collaboration and integration, exposing Elyra to more use cases.

This perspective illustrates how companies view foundation ecosystems as platforms for enhanced collaboration and project visibility, potentially leading to more adoption and more diverse applications of their software. This was confirmed by 88% of respondents who reported increasing adoption as an important incentive for their company.

Software improvements and faster innovation were also identified as significant technological incentives. Respondent B (Elyra) observed that “That’s something which is one strength of open source; it’s much more properly tested than [proprietary] software.” An additional incentive is the aim to accelerate development, implicitly thanks to new contributors who would join the project, with 69% of respondents reporting it as important. This underlines the aforementioned perspective of Respondent J (ONNX-MLIR) that AI democratisation is in large part self-interested, using open source as a means to reduce internal costs, speed up innovation, and enhance software quality.

Influencing industry standards emerged as another key technological incentive, with 63% of respondents reporting it as important for their company. A number of respondents speculated that the ambition behind Meta’s donation of PyTorch was to make it the open standard for deep learning, bringing an end to the age-old rivalry between PyTorch and Google’s TensorFlow. Respondent E (Kedro) commented:

I think that move was actually made to destroy TensorFlow because TensorFlow [does not have] open governance.

Respondent D (Kedro) suggested that Meta was seeking to beat TensorFlow out of the market since Google would struggle to compete with the strategic alliance of industry giants that had formed under the PyTorch Foundation’s governing board (which even includes Google). Respondent B (Elyra) was more direct, describing it as “a death knell to TensorFlow.” Reflecting on their experience of overseeing donations to the foundation, Respondent L (LF) explained:

Every company may have a different set of incentives but what’s common across all of them is the desire to make sure that the project becomes successful in the long term and becomes the de facto project for its given functionality.

These findings reveal a complex interplay of social, economic, and technological incentives driving companies to donate AI OSS to foundations. The incentives span both individual and organisational levels, highlighting the multifaceted nature of AI democratisation efforts. These insights provide a nuanced understanding of the strategies and considerations that shape commercial decisions, practices, and strategies in the open source AI ecosystem.

The findings shed light on the inconsistent use of “AI democratisation” in commercial narratives surrounding OSS donations, extending the work of Seger et al., 2023b . They show that in the context of OSS donations, the most relevant interpretation is the democratisation of governance, as companies transfer already open-sourced software from their single-vendor governance to open governance provided by vendor-neutral foundations. This transition of governance and control rights, however, is not an end in itself but a strategy that aims to realise goals, such as increasing adoption and recruiting new contributors to the project. It is often the companies seek, in particular, participation by other companies, who previously would hesitate to contribute to a company’s OSS project, confirming prior findings on “hold-up” problems (Yue and Nagle,, 2024). These findings challenge the notion that AI democratisation efforts are primarily altruistic. OSS donations are a strategic calculation, where companies relinquish control of their OSS project in exchange for assumed benefits. This perspective aligns with and extends the work of Widder et al. Widder et al., (2023) and Srnicek Srnicek, (2022), who argue that open source practices in AI serve commercial interest. This should not be surprising, as for-profit companies are not charities, but it provides an empirical evidence base to illustrate that “there is no such thing as a free lunch” and to understand the possible objectives behind such AI democratisation efforts. Moreover, the analysis reveals the role of individual developers who advocate for OSS donations within their companies, demonstrating that donations result from an interplay between both individual and organisational incentives.

The findings can be summarised in a taxonomy of commercial incentives for AI OSS donations (see Table 4). Drawing on the taxonomy by Bonaccorsi and Rossi (2006, see Tables 1-2), this taxonomy categorises incentives at both individual and organisational levels, grouped into social, economic, and technological categories. It provides a framework for understanding the intersecting bottom-up and top-down incentives behind OSS donations, demonstrating that they are driven by a combination of individual and organisational factors. The value of this taxonomy lies in its ability to provide a structured approach to analysing the incentives for AI democratisation efforts, offering researchers and practitioners a tool to systematically examine the incentives at play in different scenarios.

The findings corroborate prior work on the salience of economic and technological incentives for companies (Bonaccorsi and Rossi,, 2006), with the democratisation of governance in large part used as a means to various economic and technological ends, such as recruiting external developers (Agerfalk and Fitzgerald,, 2008; Fink,, 2003), reducing development costs (Birkinbine,, 2020; Chesbrough,, 2023), and influencing industry standards (Lerner,, 2002; Lindman et al.,, 2009). According to the questionnaire, the most important incentive for companies is to recruit new contributors to the project, who can help improve the quality and competitiveness of the software, ultimately serving the interests of the donor company. As Respondent J (ONNX-MLIR) noted, “there’s an expectation that we’re going to benefit from a community helping us achieve our own goals.” These findings corroborate statements by Big Tech companies about their open source AI strategies, who want to “own the ecosystem and let open source work for us” (Patel and Ahmad,, 2023) and for “everyone to be using [LLaMA] because the more people who are using it, the more the flywheel will spin” (South Park Commons,, 2024). This aligns with ethical concerns about commercial exploitation of volunteer work in OSS without adequately reciprocating to the OSS ecosystem (Li et al.,, 2022; Birkinbine,, 2020).

However, the findings also add nuance to this perspective. While the promise of being able to attract new contributors to their project is indeed important for many companies, it is not universally paramount. For some companies, particularly those with substantial resources or an existing community, other incentives such as standard-setting take precedence (Lerner,, 2002; Lindman et al.,, 2009; Widder et al.,, 2023). The case of PyTorch, which was donated by Meta and already had a large contributor community, exemplifies this scenario. Even for companies primarily seeking to attract new contributors, the findings show that these benefits are far from guaranteed. The interviews identified two key challenges. First, the mere act of donation does not ensure that a project will attract new contributors. Second, even if a project can recruit new contributors, the quality of their contributions may not meet the project’s standards. Companies reject external contributions that “are not up to scratch” (Respondent D, Kedro) and need to invest in mentoring and training resources for external contributors (Respondent G, Ludwig). Companies may need to invest considerable time and resources into community building and contributor development, challenging the notion of open source as a straightforward cost-saving measure. This finding provides important nuance to the “free labour” thesis, and provides avenues for future research into the real costs and benefits of spinning-out or donating OSS projects.

It is also worth noting that the relative importance of these incentives vary depending on the context, company size, and type of the AI technology being “democratised” (e.g., OSS, AI model, or other). While this taxonomy provides a starting point for understanding commercial incentives for AI democratisation, it should be used as a flexible framework rather than a definitive list. Future research should build on it by testing its applicability to different approaches to AI democratisation, such as AI model and dataset releases (Seger et al., 2023b, ; Seger et al., 2023a, ; Don-Yehiya et al.,, 2024). On the one hand, incentives such as building a company’s reputation, increasing adoption, recruiting new contributors, reducing development costs, and shaping industry standards likely apply to AI model releases. On the other hand, the adoption of open governance is, at least to this day, specific to the context of OSS donations to foundations. To date, while companies have released models, they have not transferred them to a vendor-neutral foundation for open governance. This may in part be due to the lack of established practices for openly governing AI models given their relative complexity compared to OSS in terms of the resources required to develop and maintain AI models and their constituent components (White et al.,, 2024), or in part because the incentives may be more similar to those for spinning-out software, such as increasing adoption (West and O’Mahony,, 2005). At this stage, we can only speculate and, therefore, the commercial incentives and strategies for AI model releases, including governance choices, as well as their implications for norms and practices in the open source AI ecosystem, warrant further investigation.

The findings capture the stated incentives of companies at a particular point in time. However, the actual realisation of these incentives and goals may vary and would require longitudinal study to verify. For instance, the study by Yue and Nagle, (2024) on PyTorch’s governance transition provides a compelling case study that both supports and challenges some of the incentives identified in this research. Their finding that the governance change led to increased participation from complementors (e.g., chip manufacturers) aligns with the incentive of recruiting new contributors identified in this study. However, the decrease in contributions from Meta following the transition suggests that the realisation of incentives may be more complex than initially anticipated. This complexity is further underscored by the fact that users (e.g., app developers and cloud providers) did not change their rate of participation, indicating that different stakeholders may respond differently to governance changes. These insights call for more longitudinal studies that track the outcomes of OSS donations over time. Such research could help verify whether long-term economic and technological benefits are indeed realised. Furthermore, it could shed light on how the balance of contributions shifts between the donor company and external contributors following a governance change. The PyTorch case also highlights the importance of considering the specific type of external contributors when evaluating the success of OSS donations. The differential response between complementors and users suggests that future research should delve deeper into how different types of stakeholders perceive and respond to changes in project governance. Future research could explore how companies balance the potential benefits of increased external contributions against the possible reduction in their own incentives to invest in the project. While this study provides a comprehensive taxonomy of incentives for OSS donations, the emerging evidence on the impacts of such donations highlights the need for further research.

Credibility refers to the believability of the findings (Easterbrook et al.,, 2008). The primary threat stems from the author’s affiliation with the LF as a research contractor, creating potential conflicts of interest and research biases, despite the independent purpose and funding of this research study. As explained in Section 3.3.3, a social identity map was used to identify and address potential biases in three areas: data access, collection, and analysis (Jacobson and Mustafa,, 2019). As previously stated, while a number of step were taken to enhance the credibility of the research process, it is acknowledged that there is nonetheless a risk of biases that were not controlled for or mitigated and as such it should be understood as an imperfect but best-effort attempt by the author. Another challenge concerned gaining access to data about commercial strategies. The working solution involved drawing on four sources—pre-donation technical pitches, post-donation press releases, questionnaires, and interviews—which offered a triangulated account of incentives (Yin,, 2018). While this approach provided four perspectives, it was inevitably constrained by the limited participation of company-affiliated developers, who were willing or allowed to participate in a research interview, and by the fact that some strategic incentives may never be shared publicly. In addition, the willingness of maintainers to complete the questionnaire and/or participate in an interview may have been affected by company policies (e.g., NDAs).

Robustness concerns strength, reliability, and soundness of the study’s design, methods, and findings. There was a risk of social desirability bias or response bias in the interviews, owing to the author’s affiliation with the LF. Steps were taken to minimise the risk of these biases, such as proactively communicating the independent purpose and funding of this study in the interview invitations and at the beginning of every interview. Another threat stems from the thematic analysis. The author sought to maximise the robustness of this analysis by following best-practice guidelines (Braun and Clarke,, 2006) and integrating approaches to coding qualitative data (Cruzes and Dyba,, 2011). In addition, the structure of the taxonomy poses risks to the validity of the findings. In some cases, it was difficult to demarcate incentives at the two units of analysis, which may have led to a misclassification or oversimplification. That being said, efforts were made to develop the categories by thoroughly reviewing prior work and member-checking findings with interviewees to evaluate their accuracy and resonance with practitioners (Lincoln and Guba,, 1985).

Transferability concerns the generalisability of qualitative research findings. There are two key threats to generalisability. First, the narrow focus on OSS donations as a method of AI democratisation limits the generalisability of the taxonomy, which both includes aspects specific to OSS donations (e.g., democratising governance or foundation support) and excludes aspects that may be typical of other methods of AI democratisation (e.g., open model releases). Second, this study may be limited by the specific characteristics of the sample of companies, OSS projects, and the foundations. The sample was drawn from the LF AI & Data Foundation and PyTorch Foundation, two foundations under the LF, which may not fully represent other foundations. Future research directions were recommended in Section 5.1 to advance our understanding of the commercial incentives for different approaches to AI democratisation.

Dependability refers to the consistency of the research process. A comprehensive list of secondary documents collected for each OSS project is provided in Table LABEL:tab:donations-projects. These documents were triangulated by questionnaires and interviews with maintainers and staff from the foundations. With their consent, all interviews were recorded and transcribed to aid the analysis (Yin,, 2018). With regards to the data analysis, common guidelines were followed for the systematic analysis of qualitative data (Braun and Clarke,, 2006; Cruzes and Dyba,, 2011). Additionally, the accuracy of the analysis was validated through member-checking findings with interviewees, ensuring their resonance with practitioners.