4 ms·

A Cyclical Theory of Open Source

58 points by MilnerRoute 8y ago

xte 8y ago
A small, concise explanation IMO can be: software is an implementation/modelisation of an idea. So not a product. You may pay someone for his/shes expertise and time and resources, but you can't pay him/her as you pay a car, a cheese, a house. Since things change and need regular maintenance so consultancy/time it's not exactly a oneshot thing many try to sell the idea of software as a product before and as a service after. Those people are really scared and disturbed by the idea of culture, knowledge and free communication because that means in the first place demolish 90% of them, and secondly reduce the remaining 10% from "human-gods" to mere "workers/expert" for hire. Since our society do not really learn nor remember things well they cyclically find new/old way to keep their model up. In the past with mere ignorance and marketing, after with lock-in, after with total lock-in (cloud/* as a services) even after with controlling production by mere scale diversity (they became too big to have real newcomers that may undermine their throne) and private knowledge (thanks to continuous schools reforms and careful media push). Sometime they arrive to a point society explode so they have to back up, they loose something but quickly recover. That's the cycle.
- ghaff 8y ago
  I'd argue that software is a product but it's a product that, especially in its open source form, can be unbundled and--as with other unbundlings such as newspapers--this makes it hard to build successful business models around it. These hybrid license models are a terrible idea for the reasons that Stephen goes into. But the difficulties of selling unbundled bits for large categories of software are very real.
  - wslh 8y ago
    Software is a product or a service depending how it is distributed and used.
  - CharlesW 8y ago
    > I'd argue that software is a product… You need much more than just software to build a real product or service. As an example, you can sell LibreOffice[1]. But you're going to need people for sales, support, marketing, finance, legal, etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice#Derivatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice#Derivatives
    - ghaff 8y ago
      Totally fair. I was using "software" as shorthand for "software product" in the context of commercial licenses for same. You're right of course that product != project and the unbundling of product attributes like the ones you mention from bits that you can freely use is one of the core issues here.
bad_user 8y ago
This is a critique of shared source licenses that are forks of open source ones (like BSD), but with no-compete clauses attached, which as the author argues, hurt the OSS ecosystem and don’t serve their intended purpose. I happen to agree very much with the article. The Open Source and Free Software ecosystems are under attack by companies that want to eat their cake and have it too. There’s never been a stronger need for defending their definitions as pushed forward by OSI and the FSF respectively.
- ghaff 8y ago
  I think there's a place for a reasoned discussion around open source licensing and freedoms in today's environment, which is quite different from the one that spawned the original GPL. While the OSI definition of open source has stood the test of time fairly well, I don't think we should rule out thoughtful conversation about the topic. On the other hand, I thought we already had that discussion at some level with the AGPL which has had no meaningful impact. What seems clear to me is that a bunch of one-off proprietary licenses that pretend to be open source--but are not by the current open source definition--is not an appropriate path forward.
- Fnoord 8y ago
  Aren't such clauses illegal in California (where SV resides)?
- MaxBarraclough 8y ago
  The FSF used to use the term "semifree software" for this kind of thing, but they now prefer to just go with non-free ( https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html )
nixpulvis 8y ago
Interesting, as I see it we as a global (just America?) society are moving towards an era of Public Purpose (if anything) in Schlesinger's model. The notion that a powerful subculture (tech) is possibly in the opposite swing doesn't seem like coincidence, but instead a natural reaction based on fear. I suspect this pheonomenon isn't unique to this subculture in time, but I'm not versed enough in history to give you a strong example. Maybe look into the period at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
benologist 8y ago
Companies not 'paying it forward' to open source is just one small component of the 'give nothing to anybody' playbook that sees corporations specialize in evading taxes, redacting employee benefits, supplementing unlivable wages with food stamps etc. I think the only solution is to stop giving them our money and highlight their greed.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

58 points by MilnerRoute 8y ago

xte 8y ago

A small, concise explanation IMO can be: software is an implementation/modelisation of an idea. So not a product. You may pay someone for his/shes expertise and time and resources, but you can't pay him/her as you pay a car, a cheese, a house. Since things change and need regular maintenance so consultancy/time it's not exactly a oneshot thing many try to sell the idea of software as a product before and as a service after. Those people are really scared and disturbed by the idea of culture, knowledge and free communication because that means in the first place demolish 90% of them, and secondly reduce the remaining 10% from "human-gods" to mere "workers/expert" for hire. Since our society do not really learn nor remember things well they cyclically find new/old way to keep their model up. In the past with mere ignorance and marketing, after with lock-in, after with total lock-in (cloud/* as a services) even after with controlling production by mere scale diversity (they became too big to have real newcomers that may undermine their throne) and private knowledge (thanks to continuous schools reforms and careful media push). Sometime they arrive to a point society explode so they have to back up, they loose something but quickly recover. That's the cycle.

ghaff 8y ago
I'd argue that software is a product but it's a product that, especially in its open source form, can be unbundled and--as with other unbundlings such as newspapers--this makes it hard to build successful business models around it. These hybrid license models are a terrible idea for the reasons that Stephen goes into. But the difficulties of selling unbundled bits for large categories of software are very real.
- wslh 8y ago
  Software is a product or a service depending how it is distributed and used.
- CharlesW 8y ago
  > I'd argue that software is a product… You need much more than just software to build a real product or service. As an example, you can sell LibreOffice[1]. But you're going to need people for sales, support, marketing, finance, legal, etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice#Derivatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice#Derivatives
  - ghaff 8y ago
    Totally fair. I was using "software" as shorthand for "software product" in the context of commercial licenses for same. You're right of course that product != project and the unbundling of product attributes like the ones you mention from bits that you can freely use is one of the core issues here.

bad_user 8y ago

This is a critique of shared source licenses that are forks of open source ones (like BSD), but with no-compete clauses attached, which as the author argues, hurt the OSS ecosystem and don’t serve their intended purpose. I happen to agree very much with the article. The Open Source and Free Software ecosystems are under attack by companies that want to eat their cake and have it too. There’s never been a stronger need for defending their definitions as pushed forward by OSI and the FSF respectively.

ghaff 8y ago
I think there's a place for a reasoned discussion around open source licensing and freedoms in today's environment, which is quite different from the one that spawned the original GPL. While the OSI definition of open source has stood the test of time fairly well, I don't think we should rule out thoughtful conversation about the topic. On the other hand, I thought we already had that discussion at some level with the AGPL which has had no meaningful impact. What seems clear to me is that a bunch of one-off proprietary licenses that pretend to be open source--but are not by the current open source definition--is not an appropriate path forward.
Fnoord 8y ago
Aren't such clauses illegal in California (where SV resides)?
MaxBarraclough 8y ago
The FSF used to use the term "semifree software" for this kind of thing, but they now prefer to just go with non-free ( https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html )

nixpulvis 8y ago

Interesting, as I see it we as a global (just America?) society are moving towards an era of Public Purpose (if anything) in Schlesinger's model. The notion that a powerful subculture (tech) is possibly in the opposite swing doesn't seem like coincidence, but instead a natural reaction based on fear. I suspect this pheonomenon isn't unique to this subculture in time, but I'm not versed enough in history to give you a strong example. Maybe look into the period at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

benologist 8y ago

Companies not 'paying it forward' to open source is just one small component of the 'give nothing to anybody' playbook that sees corporations specialize in evading taxes, redacting employee benefits, supplementing unlivable wages with food stamps etc. I think the only solution is to stop giving them our money and highlight their greed.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]