11–20 of 259 posts
Its probably time for the next generation of open source licensing to make the code not usable for profit making purposes, thus ensuring open source is either funded by the companies that use it or forms its own separate community away from corporations.
Who's gonna sue me?
Its probably time for the next generation of open source licensing to make the code not usable for profit making purposes, thus ensuring open source is either funded by the companies that use it or forms its own separate community away from corporations.
FOSS is the victim in a way, but that means it must defend itself. OSI needs to get off their asses and acknowledge the problem and work with the community to develop licenses that limit SaaSification and other forms of appropriation in a way that is compatible with the principles of open source and lacks the optics (FUD) problems of the GPL approach. I’m not holding my breath since the OSI is funded almost entirely…
The fact this is how we're starting to develop software also helps me understnad why, as a user, all my shit's jenky as hell.
OSS (to me) was supposed to allow us to bridge the gap between developers and users, making code easy enough to tweak that when a problem or unwanted behaviour comes up you can just fix it yourself. But it's getting harder and harder to see this dream anymore. There are a lot of nooks and crannies in OSS though, and I know there are still plenty of places where this dream is still very much alive. It's just become less and less mainstream, sadly.
Its probably time for the next generation of open source licensing to make the code not usable for profit making purposes, thus ensuring open source is either funded by the companies that use it or forms its own separate community away from corporations.
FOSS is the victim in a way, but that means it must defend itself. OSI needs to get off their asses and acknowledge the problem and work with the community to develop licenses that limit SaaSification and other forms of appropriation in a way that is compatible with the principles of open source and lacks the optics (FUD) problems of the GPL approach. I’m not holding my breath since the OSI is funded almost entirely…
I don't think there is a solution, short of radically restructuring the entire world economy. The fundamental problem is people being people.
I don't know what software will look like in a generation. I suspect it will be radically different, but that's just my guess. But I suspect open source will trundle along as the rickety, half-assed philosophy that has worked (more or less) so far.
I would LOVE this solution. I use open source professionally, and I continually advocate for ways to pay open source projects and developer. And if there's a way to pay extra to fund a feature, or hire a developer as a consultant, so much the better. In my experience, companies are highly willing and able to pay for software and services that accelerate the companies' goals.
If you want to pay for open source, then I can suggest Open Collective, Patreon, and GitHub Sponsors as ways that are working well IME. Or consider donating to nonprofit open source advocacy organizations including Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Free Software Foundation (FSF), Apache Foundation, Linux Foundation, and similar groups.
Its probably time for the next generation of open source licensing to make the code not usable for profit making purposes, thus ensuring open source is either funded by the companies that use it or forms its own separate community away from corporations.
Why when you already have GPL? Most companies do not allow GPL software to be used for products.
The issue is not $1 downloads so much at is the overhead, pain and issues that come along with it.
It's hard to manage and control downloads, usage, and the legal issue might be that any hint of licensing problem makes it 'no go' from a corporate perspective.
So the gap between 'Free Beer and Speech' and 50-cent Beer and Speech is enormous.
FOSS is the victim in a way, but that means it must defend itself. OSI needs to get off their asses and acknowledge the problem and work with the community to develop licenses that limit SaaSification and other forms of appropriation in a way that is compatible with the principles of open source and lacks the optics (FUD) problems of the GPL approach. I’m not holding my breath since the OSI is funded almost entirely…
I'm confused about what you want here. The GPL does not deal with SaaSification; for that you need the AGPL. But what problem do you have with the AGPL?
Its probably time for the next generation of open source licensing to make the code not usable for profit making purposes, thus ensuring open source is either funded by the companies that use it or forms its own separate community away from corporations.
I know that I hate, HATE, thinking about lisences, to the point I typically don't include one, or use some nebulous beer-ware hack. How does a new set of licenses help me?