Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Open Source

Bruce Perens Emits Draft Post-Open Zero Cost License (theregister.com) 73

Posted by BeauHD from the doing-the-impossible dept.
After convincing the world to buy open source and give up the Morse Code test for ham radio licenses, Bruce Perens has a new gambit: develop a license that ensures software developers receive compensation from large corporations using their work. The new Post-Open Zero Cost License seeks to address the financial disparities in open source software use and includes provisions against using content to train AI models, aligning its enforcement with non-profit performing rights organizations like ASCAP. Here's an excerpt from an interview The Register conducted with Perens: The license is one component among several -- the paid license needs to be hammered out -- that he hopes will support his proposed Post-Open paradigm to help software developers get paid when their work gets used by large corporations. "There are two paradigms that you can use for this," he explains in an interview. "One is Spotify and the other is ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. The difference is that Spotify is a for-profit corporation. And they have to distribute profits to their stockholders before they pay the musicians. And as a result, the musicians complain that they're not getting very much at all."

"There are two paradigms that you can use for this," he explains in an interview. "One is Spotify and the other is ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. The difference is that Spotify is a for-profit corporation. And they have to distribute profits to their stockholders before they pay the musicians. And as a result, the musicians complain that they're not getting very much at all." Perens wants his new license -- intended to complement open source licensing rather than replace it -- to be administered by a 501(c)(6) non-profit. This entity would handle payments to developers. He points to the music performing rights organizations as a template, although among ASCAP, BMI, SECAC, and GMR, only ASCAP remains non-profit. [...]

The basic idea is companies making more than $5 million annually by using Post-Open software in a paid-for product would be required to pay 1 percent of their revenue back to this administrative organization, which would distribute the funds to the maintainers of the participating open source project(s). That would cover all Post-Open software used by the organization. "The license that I have written is long -- about as long as the Affero GPL 3, which is now 17 years old, and had to deal with a lot more problems than the early licenses," Perens explains. "So, at least my license isn't excessively long. It handles all of the abuses of developers that I'm conscious of, including things I was involved in directly like Open Source Security v. Perens, and Jacobsen v. Katzer."

"It also makes compliance easier for companies than it is today, and probably cheaper even if they do have to pay. It creates an entity that can sue infringers on behalf of any developer and gets the funding to do it, but I'm planning the infringement process to forgive companies that admit the problem and cure the infringement, so most won't ever go to court. It requires more infrastructure than open source developers are used to. There's a central organization for Post-Open (or it could be three organizations if we divided all of the purposes: apportioning money to developers, running licensing, and enforcing compliance), and an outside CPA firm, and all of that has to be structured so that developers can trust it." You can read the full interview here.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bruce Perens Emits Draft Post-Open Zero Cost License More

Bruce Perens Emits Draft Post-Open Zero Cost License

Comments Filter:

  • The companies/organizations quoted have become basically a mafia protection organization for the descendants of once famous musicians that happened to have a hit. The result is that they do not go after major companies that violate copyright, they go after small businesses and even other musicians that accidentally play the wrong sequence of notes. And most of the money those organizations collect are not distributed. Some of them like the Dutch BREIN despite collecting a tax on all media carriers (CDR, har

    • Nah, unless you are extremely popular, you make almost nothing on Spotify. I am a comedian and I have tracks on a comedy album on both Spotify and SiriusXM, and I've made literally a thousand times as much from SiriusXM as Spotify... and I have not yet made $1000 from SiriusXM. So that's the order of magnitude we're talking about.

      Overall, I think this is unworkable. If you want to make money selling software, sell proprietary software the way traditional software companies do. If you want to make Free

      • I write open source software on the side and regularly make anywhere from $150-1000/month from donations, writing and feature requests. That is besides my main job where I also make âreal moneyâ(TM) building on top of open source software, some of which I have written or improved (everything I write is licensed under GPL or MIT depending on the included libraries and purpose).

        I easily spend $40-50 or more per month directly to artists of all sorts, including journalists (substack), musicians (plen

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dskoll ( 99328 )

          I make a few bucks a month on donations for my free software projects. Granted, they're small with a relatively small userbase and I don't go out of my way to ask for donations.

          When I was running my 12-person company producing proprietary software, we were seeing $200K/month in software revenue. It's orders of magnitude easier to make a living on proprietary software than free software.

          I don't pay for any music services, but I buy CDs and I have a subscription to a major newspaper.

          • Iâ(TM)m sure if you licensed your software under an open license you would have had the same success or even greater due to the increased exposure.

            It is relatively easy to sell software and support, open source doesnâ(TM)t mean gratis and about 99% of the users of open source software have no clue on even getting it installed let alone make changes to the code. How many open source projects issue trackers arenâ(TM)t filled with relatively simple requests that anyone could do. Yet stuff like a

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dskoll ( 99328 )

              I'm sure if you licensed your software under an open license you would have had the same success or even greater due to the increased exposure.

              I'm 100% sure that would not have happened. The core of our product was in fact open-source and used by many people, but we got essentially no support revenue from it.

              It is relatively easy to sell software and support

              No, it's not. I've worked for companies that had that model and it's not easy at all. Furthermore, support is labor-intensive with a low profit margin. With proprietary software, once your costs are covered, each additional sale is just about pure profit. It is far easier to have a profitable company selling proprietary software than sell

  • Percent Revenue licenses are abhorrent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ThosLives ( 686517 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @04:59PM (#64437020) Journal

    Let's say I make an expensive product, say, an aircraft or giant factory. I use one instance of a piece of software covered by this license - why would that software warrant 1% (or any other percentage?) of revenue of the product?

    We need laws to make all licenses be fixed price, not percent-revenue based. This would also fix all the FRAND nonsense, it would quiet the app store arguments, etc.

    I know why sellers want the percent-revenue model, but it's heinous; it would actually make it impossible to create certain products, if the sum of claims on revenue is too high a fraction (and in the limit, it could exceed 100%... if you use more than 100 components each demanding 1% or more of revenue.

    Also what if some other part goes up in price, making my total product cost more, why should this organization get more income (based on higher overall revenue), just because other things cost more?

    • >"I use one instance of a piece of software covered by this license - why would that software warrant 1% (or any other percentage?) of revenue of the product?"

      +1

      I was thinking the exact same thing when I read it. Just because you used, for example, gzip, along with millions of lines of custom (non-open code), 1% might not be fair at all. And especially if that fee is based on TOTAL revenue. Or is this revenue on just that particular product (because they may sell many)? And why on revenue and not pro

      • The reason why it's based on revenue, not profit, is the same reason that successful actors negotiate for a percentage of the gross, not the nett -- Hollywood accounting. If the outgoings are going to depend on profits, the beancounters will ensure that there are no profits. It's the same reason Starborgs pays little to no tax on their coffee shop income stream. Gross income is harder to fiddle (though I'm sure the beancounters and financial engineering community would have a good go at it).

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Don't use it?

      Licenses are options. If you don't like the license, don't use the product, or contact the author and try to negotiate something to suit your special case.

      This thing Perens is proposing isn't really a license. It's an enforcement agency. And yeah, if you're used to ignoring the license because you don't think it should apply to you then probably you're not going to like it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        This thing Perens is proposing isn't really a license. It's an enforcement agency. And yeah, if you're used to ignoring the license because you don't think it should apply to you then probably you're not going to like it.

        I think it's more accurate to say that no business will touch any code written on this license, because everyone assumes that they will eventually have enough revenue to have to pay the licensing fee, and that license fee is likely to exceed the value you'll get from that software. The only companies that are likely to derive more than 1% of their income from some open source library are things like cloud companies that derive huge chunks of income from allowing people to use open source software on their

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Just rewriting the code won't help in many cases. They would need to keep maintaining it, fix bugs and security issues, and check compatibility as the open source project updates.

          Even just a rewrite would be impossible for some stuff, e.g. the Linux kernel. It's too large to easily replace, and even if you could, it would cost more than the licence fee.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          If nobody uses it, they'll change the licensing, or offer additional options. I imagine they would get some. Most established companies have a pretty good idea how much a given product is going to sell and they'll do the math. And if they're unprecedentedly successful then they'll do the math again and hire somebody to replace the functionality.

      • It depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you want the devs to be compensated then this won't lead to that as commercial entities will avoid licenses that require them to pay a percentage of revenue like the plague and hence this isn't going to get the devs paid.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The bit that worries me is that to benefit from this you would need to give up some anonymity. Many developers use pseudonyms, due to harassment. Sadly the internet and many communities are quite toxic. The proposal calls for making the author of the code identifiable so that they can get paid. I suppose it could be pseudo-anonymous, but it needs some careful thought on how to implement it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          This would seem like an ideal platform for that. The random unwashed pay the Post-Open Foundation and they pay you. The customer doesn't even pay specific projects, they just pay for the bulk licensing.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Perhaps, it's not clear from the wording exactly what they mean by the contributors to the project needing to be identifiable. I suppose it's vague to elicit comments, and I'd strongly advocate for anonymity where possible, but that may run into legal issues if people are being paid.

            Something that needs a closer look.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

              I couldn't find the bit you're referring to, but I wouldn't be surprised if they mean that the project needs some clear way of attributing ownership if money is going to be involved. Which contributors own shares, and how much, that kind of thing.

              Practically, in order to get paid at any scale somebody has to be identifiable. I don't think there's less a priori reason to trust some non-profit Perens sets up versus Patreon, Buy Me a Coffee, or whatever the middleman of the week is. It would be worth looking i

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                I suppose the other issue is how do you measure contributions? It's difficult to put a value on any particular patch.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

                  Yeah, if anybody succeeds in actually getting open source developers paid that's going to be even more of a source of drama than it already is.

    • It's 1% of revenue for all the software. So if you use over 100 pieces of software, still 1%. And ask actors about the wonders of a percentage of "profit".

    • I know why sellers want the percent-revenue model, but it's heinous; it would actually make it impossible to create certain products, if the sum of claims on revenue is too high a fraction (and in the limit, it could exceed 100%... if you use more than 100 components each demanding 1% or more of revenue.

      It's critical to note that - from what I can tell - the 1% of revenue is a single payment, flat rate, that covers all the open source software you use. You would then presumably provide an accounting of the components included and that 1% would be distributed between the projects. You could, I suppose, also give a weighting of some kind if your use of one particular component was more significant than others.

      This isn't a bad model, and has the advantage of creating a legal corporation empowered to go after

      • It's 1% in aggregate for the software covered by that license, not for all the software or other parts a producer uses.

        The other philosophically odd thing about this percent-of-revenue model is that it means the price of the software is different for every single customer of that product. It would be like if you go to a grocery store and instead of a gallon of milk costing $3.50, it costs 0.1% of your monthly income. Some people are going to be paying $1.60 for the gallon, others are going to pay $8.00, f

    • It seems like a reasonable market-based solution to the real problem of software that doesn't bring in enough to cover its long-term maintenance. If 1% of revenue is too high a price for the software you are using, write your own, or licence something cheaper.

      As as for the "but what if I want to use 99 other bits of software - won't that wipe out my income?" NO, it won't. As the summary says, the 1% payment "would cover all Post-Open software used by the organization".

  • I would not have my amateur radio license without his efforts. Absolutely no way am I able to learn Morse Code...

    • Absolutely no way am I able to learn Morse Code...

      I learned Morse Code by watching naval signal lights flapping messages between ships.

      As a result, I have no problem reading Morse from a blinking light, but I can't understand it audibly.

      Another item on my list of useless skills.

    • When I first got licensed the writing was on the wall that Morse code testing was going away but still not much indication on when that would happen. I was a member of the university Amateur radio club and sought out advice on how to learn Morse code and nobody really offered much help. While half, or perhaps a majority, of the members of the club passed the Morse code test they made little to no use of it afterward and were largely ignorant on how to use Morse code on the radio.

      When word came that the Mo

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by narcc ( 412956 )

        there's parts of the Technician licensing that is Morse code only

        It's an incentive. Learn code and you get access to the lower bands.

        There's still vestiges of Morse code testing in the licensing that need to be cleared out.

        Why?

        • It's an incentive. Learn code and you get access to the lower bands.

          Hows that been working so far? What I'm seeing is this is an incentive to get a GMRS license.

          What attracted me to Amateur radio was the idea of being able to talk to people, send text messages, and maybe even photos. This was the kind of stuff advertised by use of packet radio, D-STAR, and other protocols. How many licensed Amateurs are doing that stuff today?

          I can go to the FCC website and apply for a GMRS license online, a license that not only covers myself but my close relatives. A license that cost

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by narcc ( 412956 )

            Hows that been working so far?

            Remarkably well. With a little effort, you could learn code and find that out for yourself.

            What I'm seeing is this is an incentive to get a GMRS license.

            It seems to me that you'd be just as happy with with FRS or CB, no license required. Maybe even something like Discord, if you're just looking for a chatroom with voice and photos.

            For the future health of Amateur radio.

            As your post makes abundantly clear, amateur radio just isn't for you.

            Amateur radio is living in the past.

            Code is just a small part of amateur radio, you know ...

            There's no "roger" or "what's your 20?"

            ... or maybe you don't. You seem to have it confused with CB.

            I wonder how many people take it seriously any more.

            Millions.

            this really winds me up today for some reason.

            I have no idea why. You really don't seem

        • What are you two talking about?

          There's no Morse required for technician licensing, and hasn't been for over 30 years now. All Morse requirements are gone now, you don't need it for access to the lower bands. Novice is long gone, there's just tech, general, and extra now, and none of them require code.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by narcc ( 412956 )

            He seems to think that just having portions of the band reserved for CW means that there is still some sort of requirement to learn code. I think I understand his complaint, even if I don't agree that it's a problem.

            you don't need it for access to the lower bands

            If all you have is your Tech license, all you have access to on HF is a little sliver on 10m. Everything below that is CW-only for Techs. You'll need your General or Extra to operate in other modes on the lower bands. If you're a tech who doesn't know code, you can't operate on the lower band

  • Obligatory XKCD (Score:3)

    by echo123 ( 1266692 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @05:25PM (#64437090)

    https://xkcd.com/2347/ [xkcd.com]

  • I'm used to see dupes here on Slashdot, but it's next level to see duplication within the same summary! I'm impressed.
  • I hope it makes an exclusion for opensource AI models on HuggingFace etc. If everyone starts excluding content from LLM training we will hit a bottleneck where there is not enough training material to push these models to the next level and your stuck in PRE post-scarcity neverland. That is a bad place to be stuck. An analogy, on the beach you have to cross over sand baked on the hot sun to get to the cool water. You want run quickly over that sand not stroll or go partway then at the first sign of pain tu

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by narcc ( 412956 )

      The point is specifically to exclude AI models. Why would they make an exception?

      your stuck in PRE post-scarcity neverland

      You better hope so. AI generated content is the training data equivalent to poison. That trash is all over github now.

      we will hit a bottleneck where there is not enough training material to push these models to the next level

      It's not the lack of training data that's the problem. We've taken things just about as far as they can go with the current approach. Further improvement is going to require something radically different from what we're doing now. Keep your expectations low.

  • Using ASCAP/BMI as a template?

    Good lord!

    Could you possibly come up with a worse model?

    I just this afternoon finished dealing with the Canadian version of ASCAP/BMI (called SOCAN here); they sent me an email threatening to send my "debt" to a collection agency for a past-due invoice that they never actually sent me.

    Outfits like this are completely unaccountable for poor service and mistakes of this nature. They have zero incentive do do it right and their "customers" can't go elsewhere or not deal with them

  • I understand the motivation. People invest time and effort in some FOSS product. A corporation uses it, no problem. But as soon as that corporation is seen to be profiting from the software, the developers feel a little jealous. After all, they didn't get paid, and now someone else is getting paid in their stead.

    The thing is: corporations aren't going to sign up for a license like this. Those corporations that have ethics will already contribute to FOSS projects that they find important. Those without eth

    • pay 1 percent of their revenue back to this administrative organization, which would distribute the funds to the maintainers of the participating open source project(s)

      I just wanted to add one more comment, about this "administrative organization". It wouldn't take very many years before - somehow - most of the money would be soaked up by this organization, and very little would make its way to the developers. Just look at Wikipedia: all of the content is basically open-source, in the sense that it is written and edited by volunteers. The Wikimedia foundation's actual tasks haven't changed in more than a decade, but their budget has gone up by an order of magnitude. If p

  • Yet another one who did not understand the reason behind free software. Yeah, people can make money with your software. Yeah, they are not obliged to pay you and many probably won't. But every attempt to change that kills off basic freedoms free software is providing.

    And the anti AI thing is bullshit. First it is not bad if AI learns from your software. And second, current copyright laws and those being written right now are not about licenses for works, as AI training itself is not a process that is about

  • The difference is that Spotify is a for-profit corporation. And they have to distribute profits to their stockholders before they pay the musicians. And as a result, the musicians complain that they're not getting very much at all."

    No, they don't have to. They choose to. They are choosing NOT to pay their suppliers (musicians) or to pay them only a pittance. This is NOT something they must do, there is no requirement - legal, moral, or otherwise - that they rip off musicians. They are choosing to do t

Slashdot Top Deals

To stay youthful, stay useful.

Close