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
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.

>>bachme+ri6
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.

>>Doctor+DN6
In the golden age of comercial software you still could get the source, however it was part of the commercial version not the shareware/demoware one, or as additional option.

Naturally with a license that only allowed its use on the context of understanding the product, e.g. source code for the C and C++ libraries of a compiler for use in debugging sessions.

Corporations legal departments just found out a way to use non-copyleft licenses for the 2nd coming of shareware/demoware, while cutting down development costs in the process.