Ask Bruce Perens Your Questions About How He Hopes to Get Open Source Developers Paid (postopen.org) 93
To make it all happen, he envisions software developers owning (and controlling) a not-for-profit corporation developing a body of software called "the Post Open Collection" and collecting its licensing fees to distribute among developers. The hope? To "make it possible for an individual developer to stay at home and code all day, and make their living that way without having to build a company."
The not-for-profit entity — besides actually enforcing its licensing — could also:
- Provide tech support, servicing all Post-Open software through one entity.
- Improve security by providing developers with cryptographic-hardware-backed authentication guaranteeing secure software chain-of-custody.
- Handle onerous legal requirements like compliance with the EU Cyber Resilience Act "on behalf of all developers in the Post Open Collection".
- Compensate documentation writers.
- Fund lobbying on behalf of developers, along with advocacy for their software's privacy-preserving features.
"We've started to build the team," Perens said in a recent interview, announcing weeks ago that attorneys are already discussing the structure of the future organization and its proposed license.
But what do you think? Perens has agreed to answer questions from Slashdot readers...
He's also Slashdot reader #3,872. (And Perens is also an amateur radio operator, currently on the board of M17 — a community of open source developers and radio enthusiasts — and in general support of Open Source and Amateur Radio projects through his non-profit HamOpen.org.) But more importantly, Perens "was the person to announce 'Open Source' to the world," according to his official site. Now's your chance to ask him about his next new big idea...
Ask as many questions as you'd like, but please, one per comment. We'll pick the very best questions — and forward them on to Bruce Perens himself to answer!
I think I'm knee-jerk opposed (Score:2)
Why not "Post-Free"? Is that what they called in the Confederate States?
The "selling" point would be that the software is high-quality? And it would compete with Free software? I can't dump it into my project? And it's not ... Free?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not "Post-Free"?
No need for a new description.
There's already a term for what Bruce is proposing.
It's called "commercial software".
1st gen FOSS media figures retiring (Score:2)
Tend to think that these are legacy building by late career, post end of career people connected to technology.
Makes one wonder what happens to a technology when the founder, inventor, decades long proponent eventually retires from public life. Will the tech become a history piece and slowly die out of college courses, everyday use and actual production systems?
Er, dude, it already exists (Score:4, Funny)
The hope? To "make it possible for an individual developer to stay at home and code all day, and make their living that way without having to build a company."
That's called "having a job." It's existed for centuries.
If you want control over how the company runs, you have to take the responsibility of running it. Not doing so guarantees you'll be bankrupt in short order.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need any responsibility, you just need to own shares.
There are employee owned companies that have seen considerable success.
There are a lot more where the employees owned it, but ignored their responsibility to understand how it work, and hired idiots to run it. They mostly don't last long.
If you own it, but don't put the effort into understanding how to run it, you deserve what you get, which will be living in your car.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed with AC. This isn't an employee/employer arrangement.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally everything he says it could do are things that companies do. He's describing an employee owned company, which is nothing new. Some succeed - the ones where the employees understand how the business works, and hire people to run it the way they want - that works in the market. Far more fail, because the employees refuse to accept the responsibilities of being company owners.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a company for sure. And such companies do already exist, yes.
Cooperatives are shareholder owned. Those shareholders do not directly operate the company and certainly aren't considered as employees. They have voting rights for future company direction is all.
Sometime they are beholden to sell their produce to the cooperative but I suspect that's not the type of cooperative that Mr Perens has in mind.
Re: (Score:1)
Bruce Perens is a one trick pony, and that trick got old a long time ago. Perhaps he should have coined another term, like enshittification. What little some people think they should get paid for.
Re: Er, dude, it already exists (Score:2)
Aw, cr@p... What's happening? First Matt Mullenweg, now this guy... I guess next we'll have RMS advocating for Windows and DRM...
Re: (Score:2)
>"That's called "having a job." It's existed for centuries."
Bingo. It could be a company with freelance coders being paid by their employer.
So he wants to take the "F" out of FOSS....
" and collecting its licensing fees to distribute among developers."
So it would no longer be free and open source software. Just commercial open source software. Somehow collecting license fees from.... from who? How? Would anyone want to use that software enough to pay for it? It all maybe sounds better than closed so
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think you're *too* far off, but the questions you asked are all answered on his site already.
* It's free to individuals and business making less than $X
* It's some percent of revenue for entities making more than $X, and even more if you make even more.
* The entire software collection is licensed as one collection. So, who would want to use it? Theoretically, there'd be so much in there that we'd all want to be using it.
* It's dual licensed, so projects can continue to operate under traditional open
Re:Er, dude, it already exists (Score:5, Interesting)
Having a job generally means someone else tells you what to work on. In this model you could work on whatever you like, and if it has commercial value it might turn into a job.
So it's more like a union for independent developers.
Re: (Score:2)
"Having a job generally means someone else tells you what to work on."
Having a *low end* job means someone else tells you what to work on.
Much of the time I am telling my manager what work needs to be done. Management happens when dependencies and conflicts need to be resolved.
Re: (Score:1)
The issue here is that there is an organization with costs. it's allowing anyone to join as a developer. Many of those developers will have code of little value, but will be using the resources of the organization (compliance, legal, licensing, support, etc). It's not a sustainable model unless that organization can 'fire' developers that are not producing revenue to pay for the support infrastructure. Otherwise, the developers with revenue producing products are giving up chunks of their pay to support
The high level business model (Score:2)
sounds like the already successful "cooperative" in other industries.
Fairness (Score:5, Informative)
Dear Mr Perens,
I recognize the problem you describe as real. Thank you for attempting to address it.
You mention a number of contribution avenues to the greater ecosystem of free software—from documentation to lobbying to actual programming. How will your proposed system ensure that such varied contributions are compensated fairly?
As-is, free software is largely a do-ocracy, with only moderate potential for deception. Adding bureaucracy to the equation threatens to upset this natural order.
Thank you and best of luck.
Re: (Score:3)
There's really two questions there.
- What is the algorithm for payouts?
- How is trust to be ensured?
I haven't read the docs myself but I'd guess both answers are still being formulated, and both are up for discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
A related question: What are the responsibilities for the open source dev getting paid?
Are they likely to be required to respond in a timely manner for security issues? What is they are on holiday? In Europe we have a right to take time off and disconnect, but I'm guessing it would work more like a contract than employment.
I can foresee a lot of cases where commercial interests conflict with what the developer wants to do. Timescales, architectural issues, even working with certain people. Linux has seen so
Re: (Score:1)
Would this project take open source projects under it's wing, and do things like provide corporate support, corporate dev (for the things that aren't interesting), maintenance etc. Would this be a way to
1. provide open source projects development money even if they aren't part of the post open world.
2. provide systematic methods of corporate sponsorship
Also would this be a new license, replacing other ones out there, (if so how would/could that happen with many developers on a single project). or would this
Re: (Score:2)
So, basically shareware 2.0? (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically this is another attempt at shareware, where you have a version licensed at no charge, but then start asking for dough after a while, or if the entity is big enough, perhaps with some virtual signaling thrown in for anti-military use? (Like North Korea, China, or Russia is going to heed those clauses.)
Instead, perhaps the best is to have both a free license like GPL 3 and a commercial license. If one doesn't care, pick a license, GPL 2, 3-clause BSD, or commercial. This way, if a company wants to use a product and do stuff with it, they can pay for the privilege of not releasing their derivative stuff.
As for foundations, this is something I think needs to be addressed. Were it not for F/OSS products, FAANG companies would not exist. Pretty much everything we take for granted now would not exist. At best, we might be connecting to AOL, CompuServe, or MSN, with what would be the Internet still mainly using Solaris and commercial variants of UNIX. Perhaps governments should consider a tax which would go to F/OSS projects and the amount would depend on how much the project is used, and whom. This way, some project like OpenSSL or GnuPG would get the money it deserves for being a core part of how things function out there.
F/OSS does work, and Red Hat and Ubuntu show that it does. It is just many companies don't like the idea of "free" unless it something they want to (ab)use.
Re: (Score:2)
Shareware didn't work because no one wanted to pay before using, and so many people who were authors either failed to create a sustainable ecosystem - ie they would charge once and never again, therefore assuring their software was unsupported over time, or they'd keep on trying to charge you for every little update and piss off the users, who would remain stuck on a past release and never update. If you just gave it away, you wouldn't see a cent.
So, to get around the first thing, i'd create a fully functi
Re: (Score:2)
Shareware didn't work because no one wanted to pay before using
Disagree. Shareware came in many forms including honorware, and that failed too. Shareware didn't work because no one wanted to pay, full stop.
Re: (Score:3)
Point granted.
Re: (Score:1)
Shareware didn't work because no one wanted to pay before using
I did ok with shareware in the late 80's, though you could use it a while before paying.
Re: So, basically shareware 2.0? (Score:2)
Carmack called from 1993. He says shareware works fine.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they stuck with that methodology over time. It worked, right?
Re: So, basically shareware 2.0? (Score:2)
Once they established their name, they switched to releasing free engines. That's essentially shareware.
Re: (Score:1)
Shareware was no different than commercial software - only a finite number of products succeeded. The shareware that had value and mass appeal did bring in revenue. The price charged had to be worth the value provided. Several shareware vendors went on to large commercial success.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly the point - if shareware was so great, why'd they move on to different routes for commercial success? Because it sucked as a revenue generating mechanism.
Re: (Score:3)
"F/OSS does work, and Red Hat and Ubuntu show that it does."
If it works, why propose a tax so that projects get the money they "deserve"? I'm sure you liked the tax on blank media, too, so that record companies got the money they "deserve". What we really need is the government forcing our ideals on everyone else. Freedumb.
"It is just many companies don't like the idea of "free" unless it something they want to (ab)use."
Look who's talking.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, perhaps the best is to have both a free license like GPL 3 and a commercial license.
That's arguably one of the best ways to profit from a bunch of valuable code that you own. But there is a rub, which is that if your project requires that contributors assign copyright to you so that you can dual license their code so that you can profit from it without them, a high percentage of them will decline and contribute to some other project.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, perhaps the best is to have both a free license like GPL 3 and a commercial license.
That's arguably one of the best ways to profit from a bunch of valuable code that you own. But there is a rub, which is that if your project requires that contributors assign copyright to you so that you can dual license their code so that you can profit from it without them, a high percentage of them will decline and contribute to some other project.
That has worked, at least for periods of time, for some projects which are very much driven by one primary contributing person or company. This could be extended to actually share money fairly with the other contributors to a piece of code then it could work and be useful. This initiative would be much more likely to get acceptance if it collaborated with standard FOSS licenses.
For example you could base this on git's count of lines of code in the code base which have been authored by a particular person ig
Re: (Score:1)
This could be extended to actually share money fairly with the other contributors to a piece of code then it could work and be useful.
It could, kinda. But then you'd have people unnecessarily rewriting code so that they got a bigger piece of the pie. Is there any change management software which can successfully track which contributor contributed which parts through changes like that?
Re: So, basically shareware 2.0? (Score:2)
If you can tie all changes to features then you can automate testing and know when code has changed but has not changed behavior. You could also provide a payout to whichever solution has the fewest lines if code and can make it through code review.
Business as a service (Score:3)
The copyright stays put with the developers. The corporate structure that Mr Perens is promoting is all about monetising the output, doing the business side of the business, rather than changing of ownership.
Business as a service if you like.
Re: (Score:1)
RMS resembles the Old Major rather than Napoleon. Bruce Perens is more like Napoleon than RMS. An opportunist, ready to sacrifice his principles to stay in power/stay relevant.
Why (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
AI impact (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AI can't do shit. AI writes nothing that isn't just a copy'n'paste from others work. It's the ultimate plagiariser.
How would entity revenue be verified and enforced? (Score:2)
The How Post Open Works article [postopen.org] says, "Deep-pockets entities (over USD$5 Million revenue in a year), companies that include the software in a paid-for product, and companies that wish to keep modifications private must pay."
How would this revenue threshold be verified and enforced, especially for privately-held companies that do not publicly disclose their annual revenues?
Re: (Score:2)
Assume they are all over the limit and have to pay, if they aren't they can feel free to send over their financials and if examination shows they are indeed under that limit then the discount will be applied.
"..... and companies that wish to keep modifications private must pay."
Hasn't this part always been the case when it comes to F/OSS? Needing to go to source of source and getting them to re-issue with a new/different license?
Licensing fees? (Score:2)
This is my question: If the software is open-source (Free Software if you prefer) how will you force anyone to pay licensing fees? And if you do force people/organizations to pay licensing fees, then how can the software possibly be considered open-source (Free Software)? Aren't you just envisioning a pool that sells proprietary software, and if so, are you abandoning the idea of open-source / Free Software?
Re: (Score:2)
My follow-on question is this: How do you envision your collective competing with developers who choose truly open / Free licenses?
Re: (Score:3)
if you do force people/organizations to pay licensing fees, then how can the software possibly be considered open-source (Free Software)? Aren't you just envisioning a pool that sells proprietary software, and if so, are you abandoning the idea of open-source / Free Software?
No. Open Source means the source can be viewed. It has actually meant that since the 1980s. It is entirely commercially compatible. Attribution-only licenses which let others close down your code are Open Source.
Free Software, on the other hand, arguably cannot be sold that way. RedHat is making a pretty serious try at it, but I think it could eventually come back to bite them (if we continue to have a DOJ, that is) as the terms of their license conflicts with the terms of the source to the GPL software the
Re: (Score:2)
I'm using the official open source definition [opensource.org] from the OSI, which is a lot stronger than "yeah, you can view the source."
It specifically says:
Re: (Score:2)
I never claimed OSI invented the term. But seeing as I'm asking questions of Bruce Perens, it makes sense to me to use the OSI definition.
Re: (Score:3)
drinkypoo, you need to chill. If I'm asking Perens questions, I'm going to use terminology in the way that he understands it.
Re: Licensing fees? (Score:2)
He understands the actual definition perfectly well.
Why not basic income? (Score:1)
What if everyone got a Strong Basic Income (non-tax-funded, generous, indexed to price rises, truly universal) and coded without their mind on their money and their money on their mind?
Re: (Score:2)
Non tax funded? That would be a miracle! Where exactly do you propose the money would come from, if not from taxes?
Re: Why not basic income? (Score:1)
If the Fed had bailed out Lehman's, would the GFC even have happened? Could SVB have caused another GFC without the Fed making sure all investors were whole?
Re: Why not basic income? (Score:1)
What if Treasury can sell new bonds faster than old ones need to be redeemed, indefinitely?
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that this is the real world, right? Those bonds require buyers, and when a country's debt gets too big, they want more interest, and eventually don't want to keep buying.
Re: Why not basic income? (Score:1)
Ever heard of QE?
Does the importance of repo give US Treasury bonds much more resilience than your finance-ignorant quaint old mainstream "bond vigilante" fable admits?
Re: (Score:2)
Quantitative easing only *sounds* unlimited. In the real world, money has a price, just like everything else. The laws of supply and demand apply. So if you flood the economy with "free" money, it starts to lose value. Zimbabwe and Venezuela have both tried to print money as a solution to their economic crises, and the result was hyperinflation. https://research.open.ac.uk/ne... [open.ac.uk]
Simple Question (Score:2)
Do you?
How can I participate? (Score:2)
I've been nested in Open Source within .NET as a platform for a bit, and in other communities in the past. I've seen and helped others navigate this stuff. Honestly, I'd love to join you. Is there a meaningful way I can participate in shaping this venture?
Here's an example of one thing I'd love to solve. I would love to give devs a licensing framework if not a platform for being both open source and compensated. I want to see a spectrum of options that are both lawyer-approved and safely understandable/expl
Doesn't this miss the point of open source? (Score:2)
Open source software was founded on the idea that "all software should be free." People who write open source code should expect no payment. As soon as they start expecting payment, it's no longer open source, but commercial. Calling it a nonprofit, is like calling OpenAI a nonprofit. That is how the company was organized legally (at least, originally), but the transfer of money has a way of bending otherwise pure intentions.
Re: (Score:1)
I agree with this sentiment, and that's what I presume this will be a "nonprofit" the likes of mozilla or openai
Re: (Score:2)
People who write open source code should expect no payment..
That's simply not true. Both the OSI and the Free Software Foundation explicitly stated that they have no objection to monetary payment. The FSF even has a slogan "free as in freedom" contrasted with "free as in beer" whilst the OSF, from the very beginning, was targeted at companies who were paying FOSS developers for their work on software.
Re: (Score:2)
OSF was meant to be a second OSI. Terrible terrible slip. You never saw that and you will not look up on google what the OSF was and why it deserves to be completely and ignominiously forgotten.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, there's no objection to monetary payment. I don't object to monetary payment. But if you expect payment, don't call it open source, because it's not.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, there's no objection to monetary payment. I don't object to monetary payment. But if you expect payment, don't call it open source, because it's not.
It can be. The open source definition [opensource.org] requires free redistribution by people who already have the code but there is nothing in it which requires people to give over their original code without charging for it and in fact, for a long time, people used to charge money for CDs full of "Open Source" software.
Re: (Score:2)
From your link:
Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge.
The only exception in this open source definition that allows payment, is to cover the cost of reproduction and distribution of the code itself; i.e., the cost of burning a CD, for example. It does *not* allow for license fees beyond the actual cost of reproduction.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is easily got around by distributing both the source code and the binary together and charging for both. Which is the whole point. Nobody cares about the money they care about the fact that it has to be "open source" - if you have the binary, you also get the source.
Re: (Score:2)
Being "easy to get around" is not the same as conforming to the spirit of open source software.
Re: (Score:2)
Not accidentally easy to get around. That is deliberate in the design of open source. They want you to be paid but only if you also distribute the source code as well. When you take money for it but make sure to create more source code where people can take it home and edit it, work on it and share it afterwards then you are working in the spirit of open source.
When you try to stop people charging then you are an enemy of open source and freedom. People should be free to charge too.
This is not something tha
Re: (Score:2)
They want you to be paid
Where exactly in https://opensource.org/osd [opensource.org] does it say this? I'm pretty sure "free distribution" means that no one is getting paid. It certainly does mean that open source software shouldn't prohibit someone from selling it, but that's not the same as "wanting" you to get paid.
When you try to stop people charging then you are an enemy of open source and freedom. People should be free to charge too.
Yes, exactly. Again, not the same as expecting to be paid.
Re: (Score:2)
They want you to be paid
Where exactly in https://opensource.org/osd [opensource.org] does it say this? I'm pretty sure "free distribution" means that no one is getting paid. It certainly does mean that open source software shouldn't prohibit someone from selling it, but that's not the same as "wanting" you to get paid.
This is literally answered in the FAQ on the OSI web site [opensource.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, being *allowed* to sell software isn't the same as "wanting" to get OS developers "paid." Allowing and wanting are two different concepts.
Also from the same page: "“Free software” and “open source software” are two terms for the same thing."
VC backed open source projects (Score:2)
Mr Perens,
It seems like in the past decade there has been a large increase in the amount of venture capital backed projects that create software that is (at least nominally) open source. I think it would be really interesting to hear your point of view on this type of project.
SWIFT dev lives that life (Score:2)
Its a beeper 24/7 any hour, everyday, SAT, Fibre and copper networks and WFH setup. He and only one other dev have God-copy. Not exactly open source but its one endpoint for mission critical code
please find a way to keep solildarity with FOSS (Score:2)
Hi Bruce, I'm a bit of a fan of some of the stuff that you have done, however, I also think that you've made an admission that launching the OSI as it was done in competition to the free software foundation was bad because it broke chance of having s single solid movement which concentrated on the importance of freedom. Overall that could be seen as having caused large long term damage which your new initiative seems to be at risk of repeating.
We now see that it is precisely that freedom which motivates the
If it's not a co-op, I'm not in (Score:4, Insightful)
Open Source only works because nobody controls it. No organization, person, etc can affect all open source. No central planning, organization, rules, etc. Anyone can do whatever they want.
This should be absolute chaos - except it isn't. The Open Source Community is in effect a quasi anarcho-syndicalist collective of independent workers. We don't elect anybody, we all actively participate, individually. We ignore capitalism/commerce (our licenses say you can have our labor for free, or pay us, whatever) and therefore we are not bound by it.
I would never support a corporation exerting capitalist control over my work. It would destroy the nature of the community.
What I would accept, is a collective of individuals, who all actively participate in a cooperative, managing the organization through direct action, and thus exerting control to support their own rights as needed. The other thing I would accept (which I believe would work, despite its flaws) would be to simply change the license to "paid for commercial use".
This has the benefit of still supporting other open source developers (for free), but corporations have to pay. And corporations would still pay, because they are always willing to pay for tools they need, especially when there's no other [cheaper] alternative. The model is simple: you give a 6 month free trial to all commercial users. This is enough time to test the software and find out that it works. After that, you pay to keep using it. We could all use part of our payments to support a co-op that pursues legal action against those that don't pay, as well as receiving the funds and sending them to developers (payments is a tricky thing).
You get to dictate your own license, your own payment terms, etc. But you give certain rights to this co-op (mainly the ability to handle funds and pursue legal action, as directed by you) and thus receive its benefits, and it gets some money from you if you get paid. In this way you can decide if you want a percentage of revenue (lol, that will never happen) or just $5 for a lifetime license. Or maybe Ukraine gets it for free. Your project, you decide. But for the most part, corporations pay, and someone else deals with the complexity for you.
This retains the anarchist nature of the Open Source Community, while still allowing you to opt-in to being reimbursed for your labor. It will be as chaotic and complex as the Open Source world is, which is just as it should be: a global community of individuals.
How about project-based donations? (Score:2)
My idea would be for a CSB (Charity Share Brokerage) to handle the money and help manage the projects. The basic idea would be that you would donate to the CSB and then pick the projects you want to support. If enough donors support a project, then it gets the money and commits. If not, the wannabe donors get to pick a different one.
The projects might be new software, new features, or for ongoing costs for existing software. I visualize most support and security as being part of the ongoing costs, but you w
I thought the headline said (Score:2)
I thought the headline said
"Ask Bruce Perens Your Questions About How He Hopes to Get Open Source Developers Laid"
That would be quite a lift even for Bruce Perens.
Any interesting/supportive reactions? (Score:2)