How Should the FOSS Movement Respond to Proprietary Software? (linux-magazine.com) 102
Long-time FOSS-watcher Bruce Byfield writes that while people "still dream of a completely free alternative, increasingly the emphasis in FOSS seems to be on accepting coexistence with proprietary software."
Many, too, have always preferred the permissive BSD licenses, which permits combining FOSS and proprietary software. From some perspectives, Debian's newest [non-free firmware] repository or Nobara's popularity [a Fedora-based distro but with proprietary drivers and gaming applications] is simply an admission of the true state of affairs...
On the other hand, the FOSS philosophy may be weakened because it no longer has a strong advocate. Sixteen years ago, the FSF reached a peak of authority in the discussions of 2006-2007 about the structure of GPLv3 — then immediately lost that authority by not reaching a consensus. That was followed by the cancellation of Richard Stallman in 2017, which, deserved or not, had the side effect of silencing free software's most influential representative. Today the FSF that Stallman led continues to function, with Stallman returned to the board of directors, but its actions go unreported, and it seems to speak to a much smaller group of loyalists. The Linux Foundation, with its corporate emphasis, is not an adequate substitution. In these circumstances, there is reason to wonder whether FOSS has lost its way.
While the issue has yet to reach the mainstream, Bruce Perens, one of the coiners of the term "open source" in 1998, is already trying to describe what he calls the Post-Open Source era. Not only does Perens believe that FOSS licenses no longer fulfill their original purpose, but they no longer inform or benefit the average user. According to Perens,
"Open Source has completely failed to serve the common person. For the most part, if they use us at all they do so through a proprietary software company's systems, like Apple iOS or Google Android, both of which use Open Source for infrastructure but the apps are mostly proprietary. The common person doesn't know about Open Source, they don't know about the freedoms we promote which are increasingly in their interest. Indeed, Open Source is used today to surveil and even oppress them."
As a remedy, Perens proposes that licenses should be replaced by contracts. He envisions that companies pay for the benefits they receive from using FOSS. Compliance for each contract would be checked, renewed, and paid for yearly, and the payments would go towards funding FOSS development. Individuals and nonprofits would continue to use FOSS for free. In March 2024, Perens posted a draft Post-Open license. The draft includes a description of the contract-related files to be shipped with FOSS software, a description of the status of derivative works, how revenue is collected, and conditions of termination. The draft has yet to be reviewed by a lawyer, but what is immediately noticeable is how it draws on both contract language and FOSS licenses to produce something different.
Byfield concludes that "free licenses are straining to respond to loopholes, and a discussion needs to be had about whether they are adequate to modern pressures."
On the other hand, the FOSS philosophy may be weakened because it no longer has a strong advocate. Sixteen years ago, the FSF reached a peak of authority in the discussions of 2006-2007 about the structure of GPLv3 — then immediately lost that authority by not reaching a consensus. That was followed by the cancellation of Richard Stallman in 2017, which, deserved or not, had the side effect of silencing free software's most influential representative. Today the FSF that Stallman led continues to function, with Stallman returned to the board of directors, but its actions go unreported, and it seems to speak to a much smaller group of loyalists. The Linux Foundation, with its corporate emphasis, is not an adequate substitution. In these circumstances, there is reason to wonder whether FOSS has lost its way.
While the issue has yet to reach the mainstream, Bruce Perens, one of the coiners of the term "open source" in 1998, is already trying to describe what he calls the Post-Open Source era. Not only does Perens believe that FOSS licenses no longer fulfill their original purpose, but they no longer inform or benefit the average user. According to Perens,
"Open Source has completely failed to serve the common person. For the most part, if they use us at all they do so through a proprietary software company's systems, like Apple iOS or Google Android, both of which use Open Source for infrastructure but the apps are mostly proprietary. The common person doesn't know about Open Source, they don't know about the freedoms we promote which are increasingly in their interest. Indeed, Open Source is used today to surveil and even oppress them."
As a remedy, Perens proposes that licenses should be replaced by contracts. He envisions that companies pay for the benefits they receive from using FOSS. Compliance for each contract would be checked, renewed, and paid for yearly, and the payments would go towards funding FOSS development. Individuals and nonprofits would continue to use FOSS for free. In March 2024, Perens posted a draft Post-Open license. The draft includes a description of the contract-related files to be shipped with FOSS software, a description of the status of derivative works, how revenue is collected, and conditions of termination. The draft has yet to be reviewed by a lawyer, but what is immediately noticeable is how it draws on both contract language and FOSS licenses to produce something different.
Byfield concludes that "free licenses are straining to respond to loopholes, and a discussion needs to be had about whether they are adequate to modern pressures."
So . . . "Come to the dark side. We have cake."? (Score:1)
Re: So . . . "Come to the dark side. We have cake (Score:2)
What's wrong with the GPL? It's a virus. When I'm making code available, I'm not trying to backdoor myself into a support services company. I'm just trying to make code available so everyone can benefit. I have no need to stop someone from finding a profitable use for the code.
I understand why you may want to use the GPL (although I think GPLv3 pushed more devs onto MIT than onto GPL).
Generally when I'm working professionally, I publish all the libraries and basic functionality as MIT licensed works. Then I
respond condescendingly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:respond condescendingly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
How many FOSS projects, unsupported by commercial entities, give you a new product on a schedule?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How many FOSS projects, unsupported by commercial entities, give you a new product on a schedule?
Not many, but that is a silly metric.
I don't care if a project has a regular release schedule. I care about whether the releases were ready to be released, whether I can look at the source if there's a problem, and whether I can find solutions on forums like StackOverflow from other people who have looked at the source.
Many open source projects have rolling releases so that I can upgrade on my own schedule from the development branch.
Besides, there's nothing wrong with a commercial entity supporting a FOSS
Re: respond condescendingly (Score:2)
Exactly! Schedules and time-to-market are artificial constraints from corporate interests.that are obviously completely external to people's needs
That is why GNU/Hurd is the future... any day now... any day now
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How many FOSS projects, unsupported by commercial entities, give you a new product on a schedule? What about regular security updates?
Security updates are an admission that you fucked up. Regular security updates show that the situation is hopeless, you have no security.
Re: respond condescendingly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hmmm like Heartbleed, a devastating security issue with the open source OpenSSL software? https://heartbleed.com/ [heartbleed.com]
There is no software, open source or commercial, that is immune to security issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You implied that FOSS projects don't require security updates. Heartbleed proves otherwise.
Re: respond condescendingly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: respond condescendingly (Score:2)
> How many FOSS projects, unsupported by commercial entities, give you a new product on a schedule?
How many commercial ones have? As in: truly new and innovative, not only new version for the sake of extracting more licensing money, or following an internal agenda of the company?
> What about regular security updates?
What about them.in commercial software?
> Most FOSS projects are one or two people writing them in their free time on a budget of $0.
What do you do when your favourite 'round-the-corner
Re: (Score:2)
How many FOSS projects, unsupported by commercial entities, give you a new product on a schedule? What about regular security updates?
How many closed source projects guarantee that you will get those products on time? What about the security updates? Oh, neither? Followup question, how many security updates pushed out to meet a schedule have caused serious problems? I'm asking for thousands of "friends" who run Windows and have had updates cause their computer to fail to boot, or to work correctly while booted, or to stay running...
Commercial software or financially supported FOSS can that problem, but most FOSS projects don't get that kind of support.
Most commercial projects don't get adequate support, either. We've seen that over and over again.
Re: respond condescendingly (Score:2)
So, if you're using OSS that needs updates, pay someone to make those updates. Still cheaper than proprietary solutions in most cases.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an oversimplification, even though it's basically true. There are some things for which a BSD style open license is desirable. Network protocol, for example. And, yes, we want close source software to use them.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
This is what I think a lot of "FOSS movement" people miss. Those of us who create or contribute to open source software have our own reasons for doing so, and they don't have to align with anybody else's, let alone follow the rules of some movement that wants to impose its will on them. In fact, more than likely they won't align, hence nobody can quite agree what exactly an OSS license even is.
I only write things for one a few reasons:
1. I just want to create a tool because the proprietary version sucks, e.
Doesn't sound workable (Score:2)
When you give something away, how do you have standing to enforce contractual obligations?
Unless you get the government (and because of the Internet... basically every government in the world) to defend FOSS licensing every time someone complains its clauses are being breached, it just isn't going to happen reliably.
A potential solution that might be more compatible with the real world legal system is a FOSS version of the RIAA; let FOSS devs sell rights to their product to an association that will sue viol
Re: Doesn't sound workable (Score:2)
Re: Doesn't sound workable (Score:4, Informative)
That's not the way the law works.
There is no need to prove you suffered monetary damages.
There is no need to prove they profited by violating the license.
You only need to prove they infringed your copyright in violation of the license.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
and I'm giving it away for free
The only way to actually "give it away for free" is to put it in the public domain. Very few people do this, and it's not even legally a good idea because it exposes you to more personal liability for bugs than using any kind of standard FOSS license.
Any license has strings attached. Violating any license can result in significant statutory damages. If Evil Corp violated some random guy's license, it's just as serious as if they had violated Larry Ellison's terms of service (who will also sue your pants off
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you write silly things into a license doesn't mean they are true or enforceable.
While this is strictly true, what do you argue they are claiming that a license can't do? From what I can tell, software licenses even for commercial software seem to be effective at releasing the authors from liability in most cases. In the case where the code is provided as experimental, no contract was signed, and no money exchanged hands, where is the potential liability?
Re: (Score:2)
From what I can tell, software licenses even for commercial software seem to be effective at releasing the authors from liability in most cases. In the case where the code is provided as experimental, no contract was signed, and no money exchanged hands, where is the potential liability?
This will cease to be true in the (near) future, especially for commercial and large FOSS projects [linuxfoundation.org]. Security breaches have caused enough damage that in the EU, product liability will be extended to "digital elements" (software, firmware, etc.). If you put it on the market, you either prove you did a decent job of security, or you'll be held accountable for damages.
And on the security bit: this is not controversial! All political groups in the EU voted more for it than against it [howtheyvote.eu], with one exception than mos
Re: (Score:2)
From what I can tell, software licenses even for commercial software seem to be effective at releasing the authors from liability in most cases. In the case where the code is provided as experimental, no contract was signed, and no money exchanged hands, where is the potential liability?
This will cease to be true in the (near) future, especially for commercial and large FOSS projects.
Uh, your link says exactly what I said.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I can tell, software licenses even for commercial software seem to be effective at releasing the authors from liability in most cases. In the case where the code is provided as experimental, no contract was signed, and no money exchanged hands, where is the potential liability?
This will cease to be true in the (near) future, especially for commercial and large FOSS projects.
Uh, your link says exactly what I said.
I've added emphasis to show I wrote that the opposite will be true. There will be liability, even for open source, even if no contract was signed.
And although I expect individual FOSS developers to be only as liable as employees of a corporation, the authors (both corporations and FOSS projects) most certainly will not be off the hook!
Re: (Score:2)
You really only need to defend it in the major "markets" of the particular software. Then anyone who wants the current version will need to comply. But defending even in a few places is expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
When you give something away, how do you have standing to enforce contractual obligations?
It's not a contract violation.
It's copyright infringement.
You don't have to prove monetary damages for copyright infringement, and if the infringement is willful, there are strong default statutory penalties.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a modern misunderstanding of how licenses like the GPL work, and what is possible to do in the American legal environment.
The mechanism of the GPL uses the fact that by default *you have no rights to someone else's code*. That's an absolute legal bedrock of society, someone owns the code, and it's the author, or the rights holder if the author sold them the rights. But not you.
Unless someone gives you some
Software Freedom Conservancy (Score:2)
A potential solution that might be more compatible with the real world legal system is a FOSS version of the RIAA; let FOSS devs sell rights to their product to an association that will sue violators vigorously to fund itself
That reminds me of copyleft enforcement actions brought by Software Freedom Conservancy [sfconservancy.org].
economics (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
"When FOSS first came about, the idea was that developers supported themselves via consulting work associated with FOSS software. That never happened. "
Wow, you're quite the historian! What version of "FOSS" are you referring to? As I recall, open source massively predates ANY concern over how developers would be paid, those things are unrelated.
Also, Red Hat didn't happen? Are you claiming that programmers never became employed to contribute to open source projects?
Open Source never promised revenue str
Re: economics (Score:4, Informative)
Please explain what feature of GPL is designed to benefit RMS and how exactly does it benefit RMS.
Re: (Score:3)
He admits that he did all of his F/OSS work because of his negative experience trying to get a copy of some source to fix a problem he was having for one of the early machines at MIT. Revolution OS gives a really good history of it all, with Stallman, Linus, Bruce Perens, Eric Raymond, et al
Re:economics (Score:4, Insightful)
As I recall, open source massively predates ANY concern over how developers would be paid, those things are unrelated.
You're quite correct about this. People are very much in denial about this, and it is very much due to the efforts of people like Bruce Perens who was part of an apparent conspiracy to take over a phrase which was in use since the 1980s [plaetinck.be] for the benefit of big business, and of course themselves. It is a transparent attempt at unwarranted self-aggrandizement, especially unfortunate since some of the people involved actually made significant contributions to the FOSS community. (Not, however, the person who they tried to claim invented the phrase — they proved through their claim of prior unfamiliarity with the phrase that they're either disingenuous or too ignorant to write usefully about these matters.)
RMS, who to many is the godfather of open source, was always a silver spooner who never had to work a day in his life. The GPL is designed to benefit him, not to support any business model.
Whether RMS has done work or not is not the point, although he has done. He even used to write quite a bit of code which benefited many others. But more to the point, the GPL is designed to benefit any user, not only RMS. That's why so many of us have spent so much time and effort promoting its use, choosing GPL-licensed software over non-GPL even when it is sometimes inferior in the hopes that it will grow into a superior solution due to the strength of the license like Linux did, and so on. I owned a Sun machine, I didn't have to run Linux. I sold it and bought a better PC than the 386 I was running it on. I did it in part because I believed in the license. Now here we are in a Linux-dominated computing landscape (from the back end view anyway, but also in user-facing devices due to Android*) and that choice was proven valid.
Let's not crap on RMS for acting in his own self-interest. As a user, his interest is similar to the rest of our interests. He just wanted to be able to use a peripheral device and have it work correctly! Don't we all want that? The GPL is one reasonably effective way to make that possible, and as the number of users increases, it becomes more effective.
* Yeah Android is weird but it's all highly familiar Linux underneath. Install Termux and spend some time there if you disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. How many of what we think are FOSS projects blossomed into enterprise - capable tools, fostered additional dev by those corps that wanted to rely on these exceptional tools, gave back, employed devs that advanced the art, and turned these tools into both paid and 'free' versions?
I used Nextcloud, Home Assistant, HamClock, Octoprint, and other tools, running on Raspberry PIs, on Linux versions , most in Docker containers. Not a penny for software. I use the Chirp radio programming tool and several s
Re: economics (Score:2)
You also have to realize that Stallman and a few others are on lifetime grants like the Genius grant and so have no real first hand experience with what's its like to actually have to earn money.
Stallman got a MacArthur Grant a couple decades ago, he got a one-time $240K payment before taxes in 1990, that's it.
https://www.macfound.org/grant... [macfound.org]
Do you really think that one-time payment put him on easy street for the last 35 years? Now, if he used all that money to buy Apple Stock and never sold it, he'd be a billionaire, but I don't think that's what he did...
People just want free stuff (Score:2)
Most end users don't care one whit about the source code. As long as they can get software for free they are happy. Proprietary, ad-supported, sell my data is just fine with them. Linux and FOSS has nothing really to offer them.
In my opinion FOSS was never about freedom of the end user or the cost of software (free), although that certainly was an aspect of it---the GPL itself says you do not have to agree to its terms to merely use the software. Rather FOSS was about the freedom of the original develop
Re: (Score:2)
Most end users don't care one whit about the source code. As long as they can get software for free they are happy. Proprietary, ad-supported, sell my data is just fine with them. Linux and FOSS has nothing really to offer them.
The GPL exists because RMS wanted to be able to use a printer and have it work correctly. You think users don't want to be able to do the same?
In my opinion FOSS was never about freedom of the end user or the cost of software (free), although that certainly was an aspect of it---the GPL itself says you do not have to agree to its terms to merely use the software. Rather FOSS was about the freedom of the original developer and the source code itself.
Conflating Free and Open software is incorrect and misleading and therefore wrong. Open Source (a phrase used in computing since the 1980s) is about access to code. Free Software (which was invented with the GPL) is a kind of license which was invented specifically because Open Source did not go far enough, and had the intent of actually making the code something tha
Re: People just want free stuff (Score:2)
They may not care about source code, but they definitely care when a driver won't work because the source code is closed.
Propreitary software is easy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some proprietary software have gone decades without replacement, and its why Microsoft can keep developing Windows 11.
IME windows software which is literally "decades" old doesn't work correctly even on Windows Vista and later, let alone Windows 10 or later. Some of it was even written by Microsoft. For example I used to use multiple monitors on Windows 7, and Office 97 (the last sane version IMO) does some weird stuff in that case, like if you have a window on a non-primary display, pop-up menus clicked on the other display still appear on the primary display (and function correctly there!) They have the same offset from
Proprietary software is damage . . . (Score:2)
. . . and it's appropriate to route around it.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that working out in practice?
The most popular operating systems are proprietary. Adobe abuses its customers but they still won't switch to Gimp and Kdenlive, only other proprietary software like Resolve and Vegas.
Re: Proprietary software is damage . . . (Score:2)
Microsoft Windows dominates the commercial space because of the management tools and software written for it.
Linux has a cost advantage, unless you want vendor support and/or you want management tools like Windows has. In many cases, unless you have very basic needs, there is a dearth of application software available, compared to what is available for Windows.
Unless you are willing to write/fund the development of your own software, Linux isn't an option for most people.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Microsoft Windows dominates the commercial space because of the management tools and software written for it."
Probably more so the latter than the former. Linux, for example, has plenty of adequate management tools now.
>"Unless you are willing to write/fund the development of your own software, Linux isn't an option for most people."
You might want to define "most people" in your broad claim there. I suspect you meant most COMMERCIAL (business) users. Because for MOST of ALL people (not just busin
Re: (Score:2)
The most popular operating systems are proprietary.
It seems you are misinformed, the most popular OS is Android and Android is open source via AOSP.
GMS is part of Android and not open source (Score:2)
the most popular OS is Android
Android is indeed popular. It's also not self-hosting. Its policy of writability mutually excluded with executability (W^X) has become stricter in each release since Android 10. Good luck making Android apps if most people were to migrate to Android.
and Android is open source via AOSP.
Android consists of Android Open Source Project (AOSP), which is open source, and Google Play services (GMS), which is not. Most popular applications rely on GMS. Users of devices that don't come with GMS are more or less limited to those few apps distributed th
Re: Proprietary software is damage . . . (Score:2)
Linux is by far the most popular operating system. Did you mean desktop OS?
What a grifter Perens is (Score:3)
"Open Source has completely failed to serve the common person. "
It was not intended to serve the common person.
"Perens proposes that licenses should be replaced by contracts. He envisions that companies pay for the benefits they receive from using FOSS. Compliance for each contract would be checked, renewed, and paid for yearly,..."
So the future of FOSS is closed source with a subscription model. Apparently Open Source has not sufficiently served Bruce Perens.
What hold over /. does Bruce Perens have the he continues to get articles promoting his grift?
Re: (Score:2)
Open source was definitely supposed to be serve the common person, by protecting their freedoms.
Re: (Score:2)
Open source was definitely supposed to be serve the common person, by protecting their freedoms.
Open Source was just people letting other people see their code, since the 1980s. You are thinking of Free Software. This is due to deliberate confusion and obfuscation by the OSI, members of which falsely claim to have invented the term "Open Source".
Complex subject. (Score:3)
So, it's a complex subject, because yes it would be nice if the software making a lot of money kicked something back to the open source that it's based on, but on the other hand if they had to kick anything back at all, then they would just not have used the open source software in the first place. If you want your software to be used by companies, then you can use a license like BSD, but if you want companies to never touch it, then you can go with GPL (which most legal departments forbid), or a contract like what's talked about here.
This brings up the larger philosophical debate of "what is open source for?" If it is for engineers to learn from and contribute to, then we don't necessarily need to worry about money in either direction. If the point of open source is free software, then clearly we'd want a restrictive license rather than a contract (since we don't want anyone paying for it). If the point of open source is to make money, then you probably don't need an open source license at all, it'd just be a traditional proprietary program with source available (many companies still sell products like this).
The contract thing is a good idea on paper, but it won't work in reality because of these constraints. I'd like to see the developers of important open source projects get paid too, but I don't think that's going to happen outside of what we're already doing.
Re: (Score:2)
This brings up the larger philosophical debate of "what is open source for?" If it is for engineers to learn from and contribute to, then we don't necessarily need to worry about money in either direction. If the point of open source is free software, then clearly we'd want a restrictive license rather than a contract (since we don't want anyone paying for it). If the point of open source is to make money, then you probably don't need an open source license at all, it'd just be a traditional proprietary program with source available (many companies still sell products like this).
It is about free software, but people like building something people use. There are multiple purposes.
Crush their enemies (Score:2)
Re: Crush their enemies (Score:3)
According to Mr. Bruce Perens, it's "If you can't defeat your enemies, join them".
FOSS requires shared contributions (Score:4, Interesting)
Sad (Score:3)
So, Bruce Perens has left the Open source community. It's okay, but why does he think that his idea is new and interesting? Software with "available" source whose license forbade companies from using it without additional negotiation existed decades ago.
Also, why does he want to use a contract instead of license? Are licenses somehow deficient? Or he just likes how shrinkwrap contract work?
Re: Sad (Score:2)
Contracts are more easily enforced, I suspect, since it is specific between developer and user, a license is a catch-all designed to serve every developer and every user...
Re: (Score:2)
However, the GPL allows you to dual license, allowing you to make money off of commercial interests if they don't want to contribute. BSD technically allows that, but no commercial interest would pay for something they could get for free.
So now this is an attempt to allow a BSD sort of license that also gives a kind of profit sharing, for people who use the source outside of the community.
Missing The Point (Score:3)
Both Bruces are completely missing the point. Contracts will do nothing to change the FOSS landscape. FOSS copyrights have been upheld in courts around the world, so it's not as if the legal landscape is unknown. As we've seen, the issue is one of the cost of enforcement.
For example, Red Hat has become a massive infringer of FOSS copyrights, but there is no will to enforce them because the cost is too high. There comes a point where a company in the right field becomes rich and powerful enough to ignore copyrights of anyone not comparably rich and powerful. Nothing will change if enforcement is contract based.
FOSS Developer: "You can use my software, but you have to pay me a fee."
Big Company: "Okay, I use your software, but I'm not paying you."
FOSS Developer: "I'm suing you."
Big Company: "I will bankrupt you with paperwork in a week."
FOSS Developer: "Fuck."
And that's the end of it, just like it is now. There is no way a FOSS developer can enforce his copyright/contracts against a large company without a large, powerful patron.
Re: (Score:3)
As we've seen, the issue is one of the cost of enforcement.
Well, no. The issue is that the software is released under specific rules that grant a lot of freedom, and the big players are very good at taking advantage of that freedom. Apple, for example, builds its software mostly on top of a BSD-licensed base... which more or less says "do what you want with this software". When it developed WebKit, people grumbled that they didn't follow the "spirit" of the law, but couldn't point at any actual copyright violations. It's a similar thing with Google, although they'r
Re: (Score:2)
If you have to pay a fee, isn't that OSS, and not FOSS?
Your hypothetical example effectively applies to all copyrighted content. Happens to artists in all sorts of fields all the time.
Re: Missing The Point (Score:2)
Payment has nothing to do with open source or libre/free software.
Re: (Score:2)
RedHat adheres to the terms of all the licenses of the software they put in RHEL. Any customer has a right to download the SRPMs used to build the RH packages. This has been gone into quite thoroughly. No one is arguing RH is violating the GPL technically, although their support contract appears to violate the spirit, but not the letter.
And it's an open question whether a support contract can truly forbid you from exercising your rights under the t
Re: (Score:2)
And it's an open question whether a support contract can truly forbid you from exercising your rights under the terms of the GPL.
It's not an open question AT ALL. It's right there in the GPL. You can NOT limit distribution of GPL software through contracts. Period. End of discussion. Again, the problem is in the lack of will to enforce the license. Red Hat has been operating without a valid license for years, and no one wants to do a damn thing about it because Red Hat is backed by HUGE legal resources.
And I can hardly blame anyone for not wanting to try, since our legal system is HUGELY corrupt. SCO vs. IBM and SCO vs. Novell went o
Re: (Score:2)
RedHat adheres to the terms of all the licenses of the software they put in RHEL.
They do not. They restrict the redistribution of GPL source code through contract stipulation, which is a clear violation of the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's the end of it, just like it is now. There is no way a FOSS developer can enforce his copyright/contracts against a large company without a large, powerful patron.
There are of course two ways.
One, crowdsource funding for legal. If you have a lot of users, this might be viable.
Two, find legal representation that will work on spec. This is only viable if the economic impact is very high (there are a lot of users of the copyright-violated code) because otherwise the potential reward is small.
This is a bummer. It would be nice if our legal system were more accessible to the wronged. But on the other hand, it also means that the worst examples tend to be accessible. With,
How to "fix" FOSS (Score:2, Insightful)
Gotta change copyright law. First thing, take it back to its original duration of less than 20 years. Next, and for patents also, introduce compulsory licensing to ensure public access. Next, no more transference of ownership. The creator maintains all rights and licenses them out, non-exclusively, to distributors, publishers, manufacturers, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Next, no more transference of ownership. The creator maintains all rights and licenses them out, non-exclusively, to distributors, publishers, manufacturers, etc.
If you're going to specify this, then you had better also include that the license must be terminable by either party at any time and for any reason...
Remind me, what does the F in FOSS stand for? (Score:5, Informative)
As a remedy, Perens proposes that licenses should be replaced by contracts. He envisions that companies pay for the benefits they receive from using FOSS. Compliance for each contract would be checked, renewed, and paid for yearly, and the payments would go towards funding FOSS development. Individuals and nonprofits would continue to use FOSS for free.
So corporations would have to pay to use otherwise free software? What?
I've been involved in the free/open source movement for literal decades, and while not a developer, I've supported and contributed to FOSS projects over the years (as have many here at /., I assume.), and I can't make sense of this proposal.
Stallman wanted source code to fix a printer driver 'back in the day', and soon he was standing in virtual pulpits advocating for access to software source code and promoting his free (as in beer) OS, while some kid in Helsinki was telling the Minix Usenet group about this new kernel he developed for his i386 computer...
The principle of free open source software was to empower users and enable new projects to build on what came before, not to compensate developers for their personal projects.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPLv3 wars caused a split in the community and took the wind out of the movement. I blame Linus. He was the strongest opponent to the GPLv3, and he had a lot of influence over others.
The GPLv3 was intended to addres
Re: (Score:3)
The GPLv3 was trying to regulate the server use-case back in the day, but Linus nixed that with his insistence on not upgrading from GPLv2 no matter what.
Uh, what?
First of all, there is a lot of software out there which is not Linux. There is also a lot of software out there which is using the GPLv3. Linus did not destroy it.
Second, it is unlikely that it would have been possible to change Linux to the GPLv3, because Linux did not use the optional future version clause. Every contribution to Linux would have to be relicensed, which means contacting every contributor and getting permission, or replacing every piece of code where permission could not be secure
Re: Remind me, what does the F in FOSS stand for? (Score:3)
"He was the strongest opponent to the GPLv3"
Is that true? Or did he simply point out the legal reality that you can't just update GPLv2 works to GPLv3 without tracking down all the copyright holders who ever touched the software and getting their signoff?
Re: (Score:1)
I remember that was an important point in Linus' reasoning, maybe even the main point.
Also (my opinion) forcing a move to GPLv3 might have triggered a further fragmentation of the Open Source landscape, because existing GPLv2 licenses cannot be recalled by the original developer of the software. We would have seen a bunch of forks that remain under GPLv2.
Repeat after me... (Score:5, Insightful)
FOSS is not a business model. FOSS is not a business model .
If you want to make money selling software licenses, then make and sell proprietary software. It's a proven business model that sustains thousands of companies, from behemoths like Microsoft to tiny little niche players.
I write free software (specifically, licensed under the terms of the GPL) because I like to do that. I like having my software shared and used and don't care about making money from it.
I also appreciate that for the last ~28 years, I've enjoyed running a completely free and OS with completely free and open applications that are so much better in so many ways than their proprietary counterparts... specifically: They don't track me, they don't demand subscription fees, and they don't fling ads in my face.
Again... FOSS is about software freedom. It is not a business model.
Predicted long ago by GPLv3 (Score:2)
Way back then, when GPLv3 was veing written, this scenario was already had in consideration. We needed stronger copyleft for the online world of cloud services, and that was something Affero GPL and GPLv3 addressed.
But all the "business savvy" open source advocates made it hard to reach a consensus (they did not want the closure of the loopholes), instead they caused a bit of FUD chaos and then proceeded to have a strong impulse of new cloud oriented software that went all the way opposite the GPLv3 and in
Post-Open is not Open Source (Score:2)
--
Man gets six months in prison for chanting ‘Who the f**k is Allah’ [jihadwatch.org]
It's fascinating how the anti-"Free Software"... (Score:2)
... movement got so big. I mean many people stopped understanding the difference between "Free (as in speech) Software" and "Open Source" software and just blindly accept that they are just the consumer of some pre-made software product. This is probably caused by some big companies like Google profiting of that model. Android is a perfect example for this. Yes you can get the source code, but modifying it and getting it to run on your mobile phone takes a _lot_ of effort. Even if you can do that, Android i
Re: (Score:2)
This is probably caused by some big companies like Google profiting of that model.
This was deliberately caused by the OSI. They went so far as to gin up a story about how they invented the phrase "open source" after it had been in use for well over a decade. Evidence remains [plaetinck.be] despite the relative scarcity of archives from the period. The whole reason "Free Software" was created was that Open Source was inadequate, but the leaders of the OSI deliberately created confusion over this point for their own self-aggrandizement. Bruce Perens and his buddies did more harm to the reputation of the
Nothing is new here (Score:2)
Commercial software has always coexisted with free software.
It seems to me that some in the "free" software community have become discontented with the freeness of their free software.
Free is free. That means other people, including businesses, can use it, for *free.* If you don't want businesses to use your software, there's no problem with that, just don't call it *free*! You've just become a commercial software producer.
Open source is better than ever (Score:2)
I really don't understand what these people are complaining about. People are using more open source than ever. People, not only niche users, are using Visual Studio Code, Blender, gaming on Linux (on the Steam Deck). Large parts of NVIDIA's code are open source. With a proprietary license, sure, but open source. And Android being open source has allowed developing custom versions of it over the years. Sure, that had to interact with Google's proprietary software and rules, but it was still possible.
The mai
Wrong headed hyperbole (Score:2)
No Funny anywhere? (Score:2)
Was this an AskSlashdot? The story is almost expired and has no moderated Funny comments.
If it's a sincere question,then I think the answer is something like "By developing viable economic models, but it's too late to get there from here." That could be a kind of joke, but I'm not laughing.
Having not found any funny, is it worth more searching for deeper answers? On today's Slashdot?
Sounds like Ransomware to me. (Score:2)
A yearly payment would be known as a subscription if it is willingly paid, or a ransom if required by the courts.
Free software is supposed to be free for anyone to use, otherwise you might as well keep the damn code to yourself. Free software is supposed to be something you share because you want others to benefit. Requiring payment is not free software.
Admittedly being open source does not require the code to also be free to use. But that isn't FOSS - If this
They should love it (Score:2)
Proprietary software is good. It inspires other players to enter the market and make the same kind of money, and if they become total dicks it inspires people to clone their stuff and give it away.
It's Copyleft/GPL that needs to die in a fire. Its objective is to pull software in to a realm where it can't be re-invigorated by the proprietary motivations.
Some of the best software is proprietary with open source components under the hood. Apple does a great job of this, and I hate Apple's walled garden but
What's the problem? (Score:2)
I don't really see the problem here. Freedom means people have the right to choose proprietary software if it serves them best. I don't see people exercising freedom as meaning open source has failed.
On PC, open source is doing great. It has never been easier to get your work done with open source apps running on an open source OS. I only see that continuing to improve. If someone chooses Windows over Linux, it's their choice. What matters is that they do have a real choice.
On mobile it's not as good.
Why should I care? (Score:2)
Why should I care if some people pay for Free software while others use it for free? Sure I'd rather they used Free software, but if the proprietary software or service is modifying Free software, they'll release changes and I benefit from this.