What comes after open source? Bruce Perens is working on it
www.theregister.com
'Our licenses aren't working anymore,' says free software pioneer

TLDR: Companies should be required to pay developers for any open source software they use.

He imagines a simple yearly compliance process that gets companies all the rights they need to use Post-Open software. And they’d fund developers who would be encouraged to write software that’s usable by the common person, as opposed to technical experts.

It’s an interesting concept, but I don’t really see any feasible means to get this to kick off.

What are your thoughts on it?

  • baatliwala@lemmy.world
    9·
    11 months ago

    Don’t kid yourselves, regardless of all your ideals open source only works because it’s free from a monetary perspective.

    Companies work on patches to Linux or other software because it primarily benefits themselves, and they only use Linux because it’s free. Companies create hardware on Linux because it’s free. They can manufacturer cheap devices and people will buy them because they were low cost primarily because of the use of FOSS software.

    Nearly all of FOSS is funded by corporations whether you like it or not, for the reasons you want to hear or not. The only thing that drives people is money.

    • Handles@leminal.spaceEnglish
      22·
      11 months ago

      The only thing that drives people is money.

      Hundreds of thousand of unpaid open source contributors would have a word about that. In fact, millions of voluntary workers in other fields, too.

      You’re right that companies contribute to open source as well, and that their motivations are probably self serving. Your conclusion doesn’t hold water, though.

        • Handles@leminal.spaceEnglish
          9·
          11 months ago

          Also: generosity, altruism, compassion, kindness, curiosity, exploration, principle, idealism, etc, etc.

          IMHO, money is something that exists in the world and that I need to live. It’s a necessary evil, not a universal human driving force. And believe me, I’m neither rich or even financially afloat.

    • Actual@programming.devOPEnglish
      2·
      11 months ago

      they only use Linux because it’s free. Companies create hardware on Linux because it’s free

      Companies use open source software because it’s the cheapest option. It’s all about margins.

      Nearly all of FOSS is funded by corporations whether you like it or not

      Yes, and FOSS can get a lot more funding if they charged companies even a little bit.

      So as long as it’s cheaper to pay a fee to continue to use an open-source software than it is to hire a group of developers to produce and maintain the same thing, the idea is viable.

    • kayazere@feddit.nl
      1·
      11 months ago

      The FOSS contributions from companies mentioned is only at the kernel level. And a lot that use the kernel, but with proprietary blobs for their hardware. I suspect that is because kernel/embedded development is hard and costly.

      Most of the dominate OSes people use, with the exception of Windows, is based on an FOSS kernel, with then the layers above and applications being proprietary.

      These software systems are being used to lock people in to the specific platforms and perform user hostile behavior. So while having the kernel be FOSS, it doesn’t result in user freedoms imagined by FOSS, it just companies reducing their costs.