zlacker

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+(OP)
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+k7
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.

>>JoshTr+(OP)
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.

>>bachme+k7
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.

>>ellyag+CA
> 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.

>>JoshTr+(OP)
Actually, I am well aware of your concern and thus called it "Post Open". Everything that promotes it is very clear that it is not Open Source.

>>bachme+k7
It's evolution. When we started Open Source, the corporate adoption we have today was inconceivable. The problem is much larger than just not liking a permissive license. It might be clearer if you listen to the talk.

>>BruceP+Rt1
That phrase, much like the software and licenses it describes, is not an improvement.

>>Doctor+wC
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.