Every product has a lifespan, but how long that lasts is often decided the moment it's sketched on paper. It doesn't have to end just because a part breaks or a company moves on.

When we talk about Open Source versus Proprietary design, we are really looking at two different ways of valuing an idea. Open Source is like a community garden: it invites you to see how things grow, to fix the fence, and to plant new seeds.

Proprietary design is more like a walled estate. It's beautiful and functional, but you are a guest, not a participant. If the gate is locked, you can't get in.

It feels like we see more of these walled estates today, and there is a human element to that.

I have the feeling it often comes down to the desire to own the story. For a creator or a wealthy investor, there is a strong pull to be the sole author: to ensure that a product remains exactly as they envisioned it.

It's about protecting the "original", but it's also about economics. For a product to be profitable in our current system, being useful simply isn't enough. It often needs to be scarce.

By closing a design, companies create a boundary that protects their investment. It turns knowledge into something that can be sold exclusively, ensuring that the business remains sustainable, even if the product itself becomes disposable. The problem is that this desire for control shapes the physical reality of the object.

When things are designed to be closed, sustainability becomes complicated.

Just think about a phone where the battery is glued in, or a tractor that requires special software to diagnose. These barriers prevent us from extending the object's life. It forces us into a cycle where we must replace rather than repair, using up natural resources not because the materials are gone, but because access to them is restricted.

Initial intentional design decisions are imperative for the long-term success of our planet.

If we make products that are open, where blueprints are public and repair is encouraged, we align our economy with the environment. It allows a device to be fixed by a local shop, or a piece of software to be updated by a student in another country.

It changes the product from a temporary consumable into a lasting tool.

There is a valid argument for the closed approach, of course. It can ensure safety, quality control, and giving inventors the incentive to take risks. But we are learning that this comes at a cost.

Choosing Open Source is like saying yes to a more resilient future. It's not just about saving money or sticking it to the corporations, but rather about thinking ahead and making sure that our collective knowledge isn't locked away in a black box.

Every invention can belong to all of us if we design it right, and that's a legacy worth protecting!