6 ms·

Well, the audio video quality is terrible, but the message -- in the second half, you have to power through a bunch of stuff about Crystal and Lucky -- is very

Well, the audio video quality is terrible, but the message -- in the second half, you have to power through a bunch of stuff about Crystal and Lucky -- is very interesting. He describes his vision for "post open source" license, which he is currently developing. His goals seem to be to to empower software developers to take back power from megacorps which have in his view subverted the nature of open source and turned it into a "resource extraction" scheme.

mfer 5y ago
I think there is a struggle between open source, having a viable business, and having a VC backed business. Folks aren't working that out well. VC backed businesses are different from viable businesses in that a viable business needs to be able to make money to pay expenses and operate while VC backed businesses need to make returns on investments for the VCs. For open-source projects that are the top level (e.g., PostreSQL) and being paid to work on it... it's often useful to have an enterprise market and support model. Side note, open source works better business model wise when things are more distributed. More centralized with megacorp clouds is harder for open source based businesses. For libraries that can be used by many projects, open source is a great way to go. I've done semver, vcs, and other libs this way. They aren't the business thing being sold but enablers of other things being build. Interfaces are great and we need more standard interfaces. They make is possible to have open source and proprietary solutions that work with the same stuff. Businesses can compete and work with more freedom to do so with open interfaces. Businesses trying to have an open source software SaaS that they run in public clouds are always going to be at a disadvantage. The public cloud provider can always do it cheaper and undercut the business. Businesses that try to go that route will end up having business issues. Physical products are another space all together. It's the thing (hardware + software) that make it work. Open source software is great there, too. I see it in the car I drive. Where we license things as open source should be coupled to our thought out business models. It's not an open source or post open source world. It's about the right tool for the job in front of us. We need more thought and talk on that.
JoshTriplett 5y ago
Another way of saying "post open source" is "not open source", or "proprietary". But, of course, those wouldn't get as much traction as trading on the good name of Open Source. We already have some copyleft licenses that prevent the kinds of proprietary SaaS usage that have prompted recent complaints. People and projects don't use those licenses; they use permissive licenses, and then get surprised when companies use their software under those permissive licenses. I've even seen people complain that if they use copyleft licenses, large companies won't touch their software. That's entirely the point! If you want companies to pay for an alternative license or an exception, you have to choose an Open Source license that they're not already willing to work with. Before we even consider giving up on the Schelling point that is Open Source, perhaps we should make better use of the full spectrum of Open Source licenses we already have.
- bachmeier 5y ago
  As someone that has watched the evolution of open source, it's baffling to see these discussions. Developers adopted those licenses in many cases because they wanted their software to be used in the enterprise. Now that the "permissive" licenses aren't working out, they want to scrap open source altogether.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    They were told about the devil's pact they were doing regarding adoption, but since they were the same group that believed in company propaganda like do no evil, they went ahead anyway.
  - Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
    That’s a really uncharitable interpretation. Permissive licences were not a problem in the internet economy of 20 or even 10 years ago. The challenge now is that a very small number of internet companies - principally Amazon, Google and Facebook - have such market power that they can effectively co-opt permissively licensed products for their own ends. That wasn’t the case 20 years ago and probably not 10 years ago either.
jancsika 5y ago
> His goals seem to be to to empower software developers to take back power from megacorps which have in his view subverted the nature of open source and turned it into a "resource extraction" scheme. And he's going to achieve that with a software license?
- pjmlp 5y ago
  It is possible, but I doubt it will gain any major adoption.
jollybean 5y ago
"subverted the nature of open source and turned it into a "resource extraction" scheme. " I'm not sure if that's a fair statement because the notion of 'resource extraction scheme' is entirely subjective. If people are using the software in accordance with the license that you afford it, then that's it, there's nothing more you can ask. If it turns out that 80% of the value is going to be captured by 'Big Corps', well, then that's what it is and it's entirely up to the Open Source developer to contemplate why they would want to do this or not. To each their own. I suggest however, that there should be a better 3rd option that frankly doesn't exist, which is to allow devs to get paid commensurate with the popularity of their software, which would technically be commercial, but wherein the terms would actually be fairly open by any reasonable measure. I suggest this dichotomy between 'Stallman/GPL vs. Evil Corps' is completely false and that it's mostly grey in between. It's just that there's a little bit of a cliff between the more open license and harder commercial terms which make things quite difficult for everyone aka imagine your corporate lawyer asked to review every one of the weird commercial terms of the 300 or so Node.js packages you're using ...
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Which is why we are basically back to the 80's with commercial software and demo versions. With the difference that demo versions are no longer time limited, and even with the demo version there is code available instead of being an option on the commercial product. Companies just call it open source instead, regardless of what is stated at OSI website as definition.
- neolog 5y ago
  > If people are using the software in accordance with the license that you afford it, then that's it, there's nothing more you can ask. Actually, I like people to do more than the bare minimum that's legally required of them. Unfortunately corporations usually don't do that.
pjmlp 5y ago
Being a 70's kid, the current state of open source feels very similar to the 70's freedom movements, where a large majority ended up working in offices Wall Street style during the 80's. Maybe there is a lesson there regarding human behaviour, and attitudes regarding the need of income in capitalist societies.
- ThrowawayR2 5y ago
  FOSS used to be about developers scratching an itch but now it's about developers who are itching to get scratch, hohoho. (For non-English speakers, "scratch" was formerly popular slang for money in the US.)
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    To keep with my analogy, if you aren't on a community farm to live up with the ideals and show it to the man, eventually you will need to scratch to get something from the supermarket.
BrucePerens 5y ago
Sorry. I got a new headset after recording that.
- chromatin 5y ago
  LOL, thanks for taking the time to read my comment and feedback :)

mfer 5y ago

I think there is a struggle between open source, having a viable business, and having a VC backed business. Folks aren't working that out well. VC backed businesses are different from viable businesses in that a viable business needs to be able to make money to pay expenses and operate while VC backed businesses need to make returns on investments for the VCs. For open-source projects that are the top level (e.g., PostreSQL) and being paid to work on it... it's often useful to have an enterprise market and support model. Side note, open source works better business model wise when things are more distributed. More centralized with megacorp clouds is harder for open source based businesses. For libraries that can be used by many projects, open source is a great way to go. I've done semver, vcs, and other libs this way. They aren't the business thing being sold but enablers of other things being build. Interfaces are great and we need more standard interfaces. They make is possible to have open source and proprietary solutions that work with the same stuff. Businesses can compete and work with more freedom to do so with open interfaces. Businesses trying to have an open source software SaaS that they run in public clouds are always going to be at a disadvantage. The public cloud provider can always do it cheaper and undercut the business. Businesses that try to go that route will end up having business issues. Physical products are another space all together. It's the thing (hardware + software) that make it work. Open source software is great there, too. I see it in the car I drive. Where we license things as open source should be coupled to our thought out business models. It's not an open source or post open source world. It's about the right tool for the job in front of us. We need more thought and talk on that.

JoshTriplett 5y ago

Another way of saying "post open source" is "not open source", or "proprietary". But, of course, those wouldn't get as much traction as trading on the good name of Open Source. We already have some copyleft licenses that prevent the kinds of proprietary SaaS usage that have prompted recent complaints. People and projects don't use those licenses; they use permissive licenses, and then get surprised when companies use their software under those permissive licenses. I've even seen people complain that if they use copyleft licenses, large companies won't touch their software. That's entirely the point! If you want companies to pay for an alternative license or an exception, you have to choose an Open Source license that they're not already willing to work with. Before we even consider giving up on the Schelling point that is Open Source, perhaps we should make better use of the full spectrum of Open Source licenses we already have.

bachmeier 5y ago
As someone that has watched the evolution of open source, it's baffling to see these discussions. Developers adopted those licenses in many cases because they wanted their software to be used in the enterprise. Now that the "permissive" licenses aren't working out, they want to scrap open source altogether.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  They were told about the devil's pact they were doing regarding adoption, but since they were the same group that believed in company propaganda like do no evil, they went ahead anyway.
- Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
  That’s a really uncharitable interpretation. Permissive licences were not a problem in the internet economy of 20 or even 10 years ago. The challenge now is that a very small number of internet companies - principally Amazon, Google and Facebook - have such market power that they can effectively co-opt permissively licensed products for their own ends. That wasn’t the case 20 years ago and probably not 10 years ago either.

jancsika 5y ago

> His goals seem to be to to empower software developers to take back power from megacorps which have in his view subverted the nature of open source and turned it into a "resource extraction" scheme. And he's going to achieve that with a software license?

pjmlp 5y ago
It is possible, but I doubt it will gain any major adoption.

jollybean 5y ago

"subverted the nature of open source and turned it into a "resource extraction" scheme. " I'm not sure if that's a fair statement because the notion of 'resource extraction scheme' is entirely subjective. If people are using the software in accordance with the license that you afford it, then that's it, there's nothing more you can ask. If it turns out that 80% of the value is going to be captured by 'Big Corps', well, then that's what it is and it's entirely up to the Open Source developer to contemplate why they would want to do this or not. To each their own. I suggest however, that there should be a better 3rd option that frankly doesn't exist, which is to allow devs to get paid commensurate with the popularity of their software, which would technically be commercial, but wherein the terms would actually be fairly open by any reasonable measure. I suggest this dichotomy between 'Stallman/GPL vs. Evil Corps' is completely false and that it's mostly grey in between. It's just that there's a little bit of a cliff between the more open license and harder commercial terms which make things quite difficult for everyone aka imagine your corporate lawyer asked to review every one of the weird commercial terms of the 300 or so Node.js packages you're using ...

pjmlp 5y ago
Which is why we are basically back to the 80's with commercial software and demo versions. With the difference that demo versions are no longer time limited, and even with the demo version there is code available instead of being an option on the commercial product. Companies just call it open source instead, regardless of what is stated at OSI website as definition.
neolog 5y ago
> If people are using the software in accordance with the license that you afford it, then that's it, there's nothing more you can ask. Actually, I like people to do more than the bare minimum that's legally required of them. Unfortunately corporations usually don't do that.

pjmlp 5y ago

Being a 70's kid, the current state of open source feels very similar to the 70's freedom movements, where a large majority ended up working in offices Wall Street style during the 80's. Maybe there is a lesson there regarding human behaviour, and attitudes regarding the need of income in capitalist societies.

ThrowawayR2 5y ago
FOSS used to be about developers scratching an itch but now it's about developers who are itching to get scratch, hohoho. (For non-English speakers, "scratch" was formerly popular slang for money in the US.)
- pjmlp 5y ago
  To keep with my analogy, if you aren't on a community farm to live up with the ideals and show it to the man, eventually you will need to scratch to get something from the supermarket.

BrucePerens 5y ago

Sorry. I got a new headset after recording that.

chromatin 5y ago
LOL, thanks for taking the time to read my comment and feedback :)