Over the years I have thought a lot about FOSS licensing and related issues. Perhaps more than warranted by my actual FOSS contributions, but I digress. I used

Over the years I have thought a lot about FOSS licensing and related issues. Perhaps more than warranted by my actual FOSS contributions, but I digress. I used to be hard-core in the free software camp, and while I wouldn't say I have abandoned it, my stance has certainly softened. A couple of recent articles and presentations that have affected (or mirrored?) my own thinking: http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/12/14/open-source-confronts-its-midlife-crisis/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/12/14/open-source-confronts... https://archive.org/details/copyleftconf2020-allison https://archive.org/details/copyleftconf2020-allison A couple of quick takes - The tivoization issue: The rejection of GPLv3 by the Linux kernel in practice means that the free software movement has failed here. I'm hoping activists pushing for Right to Repair and similar legislation will prove more successful in enabling people more control over their own devices. - The cloud service provider loophole: The almost complete rejection of AGPL by, well, more or less everybody, means that the free software movement has also failed here. Plain GPL doesn't provide more protection against a service provider "leeching" your code than a permissive license. If copyleft has failed here, what are alternative approaches here then? Data portability and anti-trust legislation? - Protection against leeching by evil corporations vs maximizing usage: If, like some of the core Linux kernel people have said, "there's no value in driving freeloaders away", is copyleft worth the trouble? - The end user vs. developers argument: The FSF spends a lot on this, about protecting the rights of the end user. But if we look around at non-techie people, largely they just don't give a shit. Perhaps the copyleft movement needs to work on its messaging, or is this a completely lost cause. - FOSS business models: To begin with, trite as it sounds, "write FOSS" is not a business model. The more interesting question is perhaps how build FOSS communities that can, in one way or another, sustain themselves economically. - If you don't have a plan to make money, does leeching (see above) matter? And no, "I'll license my code under (A)GPL, if somebody wants another license call me and lets talk $$$" is for the vast majority of cases not a realistic business model either. - Dual licensing: Not really applicable for trying to build a community. Why would an outsider contribute and assign copyright to a project under a "poison pill" license so that someone else can make a buck off that work? - Open core: Evidently successful (see e.g. cossi list), but is this really FOSS, or is it proprietary software with an open source loss leader? - Commodity community: Essentially sharing the maintenance burden of the non-differentiated part of whatever you're doing. The Linux kernel being a good example of this. - Support or selling "LTS" licenses: E.g. redhat. Can work, but seldom achieves the kind of growth numbers that makes VC's salivate (if that matters to you).