An open source review board (OSRB) is a cross-functional group that reviews how a company uses and releases open source. It usually includes engineering and product representatives, legal counsel and a compliance lead. Its job is to approve, reject or condition requests and to keep license obligations from surprising the business.
Definition
The Linux Foundation guide on creating an open source program describes the core compliance team, often called the Open Source Review Board, as representatives from engineering and product teams, one or more legal counsel, and a compliance officer, who is often the open source program manager. An extended team of documentation, supply chain, corporate development, IT and localization staff works on compliance part time, taking tasks from the board.
The guide gives an example policy line: engineers receive approval from auditing staff such as an OSRB before integrating open source code in a product. It adds that software received from third parties should be audited to identify the open source code inside, so license obligations can be met before a product ships.
Who sits on it
| Seat | Why it is there |
|---|---|
| Engineering representative | Knows how the component is used and whether alternatives exist |
| Product representative | Knows how the product is distributed to customers |
| Legal counsel | Reads license obligations and contribution terms |
| Compliance lead | Runs the process and keeps records |
| Security representative | Adds vulnerability and maintainer health context (a common addition, not part of the guide's list) |
Keep the core group small. Pull in the extended team only for the requests that touch them.
What it decides
- Whether a component with a restrictive or unusual license may ship.
- Whether an internal project may be released publicly, and under which license.
- Whether an employee contribution to an outside project is acceptable.
- Exceptions to the policy, with an expiry date.
For a template of the last item, see a security exception for an open source dependency.
When a board is the wrong tool
The guide quotes a leader at a very large company who says a central body approving open source for entirely different businesses would not work, so engineers get tools and guidance, not a central approval step. If most of your requests are routine, a board is a slow way to answer them. Use it for the unusual cases and let an allowed list handle the rest.
How to keep it fast
- Publish an allowed list so common requests never reach the board.
- Use a short intake form with the component, version, license, how it is used and how it ships. See open source intake request form fields.
- Set a response time, for example five working days, and report how often you meet it.
- Decide by written criteria so similar cases get similar answers.
- Record every decision where the team can find it.
Evidence it produces
A board generates records that buyers and auditors like: who asked, what was decided, on what date, with which conditions. Keep them in one place. Safeguard's compliance and evidence automation helps gather inventory and policy results that support those records, and its policies and gates enforce the outcome in pull requests. See a free scan at gold.safeguard.sh/scan.
Try it yourself
Click through it at your own pace, or open it full screen. Look at where a board decision could become an automatic check.
Quick check
Is an OSRB required by law?
No. It is an internal governance practice. Your contracts, regulators or customers may expect a documented review process, so check what applies to you.
How big should an OSRB be?
Small. Four or five core members is typical of the structure the guide describes, with others pulled in as needed.
Sources
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
