SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the stepping-stones-to-sofware-freedom dept.
Bruce Perens is working on licensing for a new, post-Open Source era to take open source licensing past the apparent stalling point it has reached on its way towards software freedom. As he noted earlier, current licenses are not meeting that goal and businesses have either found loophole or just plain been allowed to ignore the licensing. A move more towards a contract is needed.
At the link below is the first draft of the Post-Open License. This is not yet the product of a qualified attorney, and you shouldn't apply it to your own work yet. There isn't context for this license yet, so some things won't make sense: for example the license is administered by an entity called the "POST-OPEN ADMINISTRATION" and I haven't figured out how to structure that organization so that people can trust it. There are probably also terms I can't get away with legally, this awaits work with a lawyer.
Because the license attempts to handle very many problems that have arisen with Open Source licensing, it's big. It's approaching the size of AGPL3, which I guess is a metric for a relatively modern license, since AGPL3 is now 17 years old
The draft license is quite long since it covers quite a few scenarios.
Previously:
(2023) What Comes After Open Source? Bruce Perens is Working on It
(2018) The Next 20 Years of Open Source Software Begins Today
(Score: 5, Interesting) by rpnx on Saturday March 09 2024, @10:15PM (3 children)
Post-Open sounds like an attempt to defeat the core values of open source and replace them with the progatzi values. (progatzi = progressive nazi)
The core of open source does not need to be better than proprietary software to be successful, it simply needs to continue getting better. The Post-Open license is very clearly non-free.
The reason why open source isn't working in some sense, is because of permissive (instead of copyleft) open source licenses allowing proprietary software to incorporate them. No corporation would use a post open license, just as they do not like using AGPLv3 licensed software.
I see no reason to support a "post-open" world. Open source is the goal, and permissive open source is a compromise between corporations and the open source community. Post-open betrays the values that underlay open source and it will be defeated in the end. Post-open is the enemy, in many ways, I see it as worse than typical proprietary software. At least proprietary software gives me the right to use it if I pay for it. Post-open software is about exclusion of big companies, and "power to the small" is never what open source was about. Open source is about freedom for everyone, including big companies.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Vocal Minority on Sunday March 10 2024, @05:48AM (1 child)
I must admit I had a similar reaction to the name, but they may just be using it because it "sounds cool". Do you have any examples from the licence to show that it betrays the core values of open source?
(Score: 4, Informative) by rpnx on Monday March 11 2024, @03:05AM
I haven't read the whole license, but I read enough to know it's not compatible with open source. Giving power to an administration and also excluding based on revenue is not open.
(Score: 5, Funny) by kazzie on Sunday March 10 2024, @07:33AM
To me, "Post-Open License" sounds like permission for the mail carrier to steam open my letters.