zlacker

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+(OP)
> 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.