zlacker

>>zdw+(OP)
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.

>>chroma+UU5
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.

>>JoshTr+7b6
He knows we already have some licenses like that. He mentions that the megacorps that have come to dominate open source use their influence to give the worst licenses the highest profile. This could be arguable, but I think it makes some sense and he did address it.

Starting a new movement with a new license could be a way to escape the current dynamics.

>>ellyag+JL6
> He mentions that the megacorps that have come to dominate open source use their influence to give the worst licenses the highest profile.

That's certainly true, but that's not a good reason to declare bankruptcy and throw away the whole movement.

> Starting a new movement with a new license could be a way to escape the current dynamics.

A new movement seems more likely to end up worse, by not maintaining compatibility with the definition of Open Source; that definition exists for a reason, and its requirements don't just facilitate participation by megacorps, they facilitate participation by everyone. Just about every new license proposal I've seen has failed to actually be an Open Source license. "Hey, as long as we're changing the requirements, let's just go full 'non-commercial use only'", or "Hey, as long as we're changing the requirements, let's try to define ethics in a legal document". All the same mistakes over again that people had to fight to reject the first time around.

We don't need a new movement. We might need an improved license that's still Open Source, and a better marketing plan around that license.