For years, “open source” has hovered around freight forwarding technology as an abstract ideal rather than a practical operating model. Everyone knows it underpins the internet, cloud infrastructure, and modern software development. But few have argued that it could sit anywhere near the operational heart of a freight forwarder.
That may now be starting to change. Not because open source is suddenly more capable, but because, following the launch of CargoWise’s new value packs and the industry frustration over its stranglehold on the TMS sector, systems are being questioned more openly.
Forwarders are no longer just asking what their TMS can do; they are asking who ultimately controls workflows, data, and the pace at which they can adapt.
Now a growing number of proponents are arguing that the future of forwarding technology is not another proprietary platform, but shared, open infrastructure.
FreightTech.org is one of the clearest articulations of that idea. But founder and CEO Sebastian Wróbel is careful not to present what it is building as a direct replacement for CargoWise or other end-to-end systems. Instead, it is built on MIT-licensed Open Mercato modules, covering areas such as booking, scheduling, procurement, and document handling, designed to be assembled, adapted, and extended by forwarders or vendors as they see fit.
In this framing, the TMS becomes less of a monolith and more of an arrangement: a set of components, integrations, and services that can be owned, replaced, or modified without asking permission from a single vendor.
Crucially, FreightTech does not deny that most forwarders still want a supplier on the other end of the phone. Its own commercial role sits in a proprietary data-integration layer, alongside optional hosting and implementation services, tools it says can already be replaced by alternatives if customers choose, and which it claims would be open-sourced in the event of company failure.
Speed and cost are two advantages, said Mr Wróbel, noting that the module was built in five weeks.
“Our approach… from the very beginning [was] not to ask anyone to actually pay for the access to data… it should be for fre,e because it’s going to drive the productivity.”
But the idea that open source could meaningfully underpin forwarding operations remains contentious, even among those broadly sympathetic to the direction of travel.
Brian Glick, founder of Chain.io and a former forwarder, is clear that open source itself is not the issue.
“Everything everybody runs is on open source software,” he noted. Where it has been successful, however, is at the component level rather than as finished operational products.
“It’s been successful at the Lego brick level, not the Lego,” he says. Routing engines, libraries, and standards work well as building blocks, but freight forwarders, he argued, still want systems that work out of the box, with a vendor, a help desk, and clear accountability.
That is echoed by Robert Petti, CEO of Prompt Global, who questioned the use of open source as a primary operating model. Forwarders, he says, are not software companies, and open-source projects without a clear economic engine have a long history of stagnation.
Those concerns resonate strongly with operators, but they have not closed the door to it.
Jamie Andrade, SVP product management for Seko Logistics, described the open-source movement in forwarding as something she is watching carefully.
“We’re not using it at any scale today,” she says. “I’ve talked to a couple of early-days folks trying to get into the TMS market with that sort of open-source mindset. I’m not immediately jumping on the bandwagon, but I might get in line for a ticket. I want to see what happens.”
What interests Ms Andrade is not the idea of ripping out existing systems, but the possibility of accelerating integration in an industry defined by fragmentation. Moving a shipment from point A to point B can involve dozens of parties, each with their own systems and interfaces.
“Building kind of an open-source, almost like an app store, where you can put in a solution for customs in this country or messaging in this country, and everybody can use it – that’s interesting,” she said. “You benefit from putting your solution out there.”
In theory, that model could allow forwarders to monetise niche capabilities rather than bury them inside bespoke internal systems. A custom-made customs integration, for example, could be shared across a wider network, generating revenue while reducing duplicated effort.
At the same time, Ms Andrade is clear-eyed about the competitive and cultural challenges. She asked: “Do I want to be paying my competitor? No. But it is an interesting approach.”
That ambivalence captures the broader mood. Open source is not being embraced as a silver bullet, nor dismissed as unrealistic. Instead, it is being explored as a way to loosen the grip of monolithic platforms without abandoning vendors altogether.
The pricing debate has not suddenly made open source viable. But what it has done is force forwarders to confront the cost of dependency, and to consider architectures that allow partial exits rather than all-or-nothing migrations.
None of this suggests a mass exodus from incumbent TMS platforms is imminent.
As Mr Glick pointed out, most forwarders will continue to prioritise simplicity, support, and accountability. For many, the convenience of a single vendor will still outweigh the appeal of greater autonomy.
But the emergence of credible open-source-based infrastructure signals a shift in how forwarding technology is being thought about. The question is no longer whether open source can replace the TMS – it is whether the TMS can remain the unquestioned centre of gravity.
Catch up with today’s News in Brief podcast!
[embedded content]
