Open Source Initiative co-founder imagines a post-open-source world

emorphy

Posts: 64   +0
Staff
Something to look forward to: One of the founders of the Open Source Initiative is unhappy with the movement's current state of affairs. What is the first action he would take in a Post-Open Source world? Get rid of the General Public License (GPL).

In a post-open-source world, Bruce Perens, one of the co-founders of the Open Source movement, envisions a simple compliance process that companies must go through every year in exchange for all the rights necessary to use open-source software. These companies would fund developers writing software for ordinary people as opposed to highly technical programs. He's described this world in various papers and recently outlined his thoughts to The Register.

Perens is particularly interested in what comes after the 30-year-old movement. He believes it desperately needs reform, starting with the GPL, which is riddled with loopholes that companies exploit. That model no longer works in the current environment. Perens believes "enforceable contract terms," rather than licensing, would be more effective.

He notes that one-third of all paid-for Linux systems are sold with a GPL circumvention. He's particularly frustrated with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which stopped making its source code available in June via to a GPL loophole.

Under IBM ownership, RHEL has become proprietary and stopped distributing the free Red Hat fork CentOS. Furthermore, IBM forbids Red Hat customers from sharing source code for Red Hat security patches. It also does not allow employees to provide the patches to the upstream open-source project as required by the GPL license.

"So I feel that IBM has gotten everything it wants from the open source developer community now, and we've received something of a middle finger from them," Perens said.

Another problem with open source is that it has failed to serve everyday people. If it's used at all, it is through a software company's infrastructure, while the apps are proprietary code. Perens points to iOS and Android as examples. This dynamic has created a scenario that is the complete antithesis of open source and what it used to stand for. Perens says it has gotten to the point where the average user doesn't know about the freedoms the Open Source Initiative promotes.

"Indeed, open source is used today to surveil and even oppress them," he told The Register.

His vision of post-open source – free for individuals and non-profits with just one license – would remedy many of these issues. Chief among these is that post-open terms would define the financial relationship between developers and the companies that use their products.

Currently, open-source developers tend to write code for themselves and others in the community. If companies were to pay them, they would have the necessary support and motivation to make more user-friendly applications.

"And all of this has to be transparent and adjustable enough that it doesn't fork 100 different ways," he said. "So, you know, that's one of my big questions. Can this really happen?"

Permalink to story.

 
Can this really happen?
No. Because...
Open Source is free if your time is worthless.
And that right there is the crux of the problem. Open source is nice but this for-profit world that we live in basically screws over open source projects by how they take from the community but never give back. Those that have so much never give and that right there, outside of big and well-known open source projects, is why open source as a concept will eventually die.
 
Free typically kills standardization and quality control; it's a nice dream; but this is reality; not somee carebear utopia that we live in
 
Open Source is a buy-in; it can become a reality, but only if there's a critical mass. Unfortunately, the nature of things causes people to prioritise personal survival, achievement, and advantage. If there is a very real payoff by circumventing things, a rational mind that is not informed by personal-moral restraint and without having access to any sort of financial benefactor will choose to reap that payoff for sure.
 
The article title is clickbaity. He's saying open source should remain free for individuals and non profits. But for profit companies should not be able to profit off the back of open source developers. Open source developers need to stop using GPL and find a more suitable license which charges for profit companies such as Google and Apple who take advantage of the "free" code to make billions while those who did the work and wrote the code struggle with funding.
 
Open Source is free if your time is worthless.

It's a really successful model though and there is a lot of high quality open source software available.

The quote you are using has always been facile and truthy rather than profound. What it really means is that it can take time to adapt the software for your specific needs, and noone will be holding your hand. Which can be true but also applies to a lot of non-open source software. Anything but the most basic questions can easily end you up directed straight to posting on the vendor community forums. And all too often you get some workaround rather than what you're really looking for.

The problem really isn't open source. It is people trying to exploit it to the maximum extent of what they can legally get away with. So yeah like Perens says, what is needed is fixing loopholes in the licensing. Also, enforcement with teeth.
 
These are radical solutions for nonexistent problems. Open source is thriving, which is why some companies attempt to appropriate successful open source products.

If there are actual loopholes, sure, fix them in the next iteration of the GPL. But if Red Hat demands its customers to break the GPL as part of their contracts, then either Red Hat or a couple of its high-profile customers need to be sued over that. That's how the law works.
 
Open source like democracy relies on the average person not being an ***** which is sadly not the case.

You are talking about utopian Communism and the state withering away in a workers' paradise. Democratic constitutions and Open Source licenses actively account for people being ******s. Otherwise there would be no need for a binding legal document to enforce the terms at all.
 
You are talking about utopian Communism and the state withering away in a workers' paradise. Democratic constitutions and Open Source licenses actively account for people being ******s. Otherwise there would be no need for a binding legal document to enforce the terms at all.
Constitutions and licenses are written by people.
 
I believe Perens is proposing that free software foundations become actual vendors of software, with the software no longer "free" unless you have a contract, paid or otherwise. In other words, they become workers' cooperatives. Not sure how salary or profits will be doled out to casual developers, I see no problems arising there at all (/s).

This would be a massive step backward in terms of acceptance of Open Source software in the industry if they did manage to convert existing products to this model, which thankfully is not possible because all of the products currently under GPL would be immediately forked by various companies who currently use them. So these foundations will only succeed in marginalizing themselves.
 
You are talking about utopian Communism and the state withering away in a workers' paradise. Democratic constitutions and Open Source licenses actively account for people being ******s. Otherwise there would be no need for a binding legal document to enforce the terms at all.

Except for the exaggerated depiction of worker's rights, your both right :D
 
Red Hat has actually contributed a lot of open source code, such as systemd. They have contributed code to a lot of good projects. I don't really blame them for not wanting a rip-off version of their distribution, though using a GPL loophole to try to prevent it is not cool. I don't know why anyone would want to use a Red Hat rip off operating system anyway when there are better Debian options.

Companies that build products from open source have done a decent job of contributing to open source. It would be nice if they contributed money too, but that isn't really what open source is about. They do contribute code and that is what open source is really about.

There aren't really any good non-android, open source-based phones or tablets available to buy and everything is locked down so you can't easily load Linux on it. That is a bigger issue than any of the things he named. I use Debian on my desktop and would like to run it on my tablet and phone, but I don't have any good options to do that. So I'm stuck using software that are oppressive in those form factors.
 
Companies that build products from open source have done a decent job of contributing to open source. It would be nice if they contributed money too, but that isn't really what open source is about. They do contribute code and that is what open source is really about.
Yes, but then you have projects like OpenSSL that the whole world relies on for secure communications across the Internet and it only has one guy, one maintainer and oh yeah, he's doing it for... nothing. How the heck is that fair?
 
Yes, but then you have projects like OpenSSL that the whole world relies on for secure communications across the Internet and it only has one guy, one maintainer and oh yeah, he's doing it for... nothing. How the heck is that fair?
If a statement sounds wrong, it probably is wrong. Just like in your case.

Contributors:

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/graphs/contributors

Biggest contributor:

https://github.com/levitte

His professional info:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/richardlevitte/

His employer:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/openssl-software-foundation/

Their business model:

https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2023/08/08/finances/

It took about half a minute of googling. Check your facts before pulling random ideas out of your arse.
 
If a statement sounds wrong, it probably is wrong. Just like in your case.

Contributors:

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/graphs/contributors

Biggest contributor:

https://github.com/levitte

His professional info:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/richardlevitte/

His employer:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/openssl-software-foundation/

Their business model:

https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2023/08/08/finances/

It took about half a minute of googling. Check your facts before pulling random ideas out of your arse.
Excuse me? I remember back when Heartbleed first came on the scene and oh yeah, there was only one guy!!!
 
Back