Jamie Tanna, a software engineer, notes a sudden surge in mis‑capitalising the term that describes community‑driven code. He distinguishes Open Source, reserved for OSSI‑approved licenses, from generic *open source*, which includes non‑OSI licences like Elastic 2.0 or Business Source. The distinction matters for compliance and contribution rights.

Over the past month, Tanna has seen the trend surface on forums, blogs and even in pull‑request comments. He suspects large language models are nudging writers toward the incorrect hyphenated form, *open‑source*. A quick test across GPT‑4.1, Claude and Gemini shows most replies insert a dash, despite the Open Source Initiative’s clear guidance.

The mis‑capitalisation may seem trivial, but it signals deeper issues. Companies can claim “Open Source” compliance while deploying Business Source or Elastic licences, a practice known as openwashing. Developers relying on LLMs for documentation risk propagating these inaccuracies, potentially misleading contributors and auditors.

Tanna’s call to action is simple: use the correct terminology and verify licence types before publishing. By enforcing the distinction, the community can avoid legal pitfalls and maintain genuine openness. The conversation around hyphenation may end, but the need for clarity in licence attribution remains.