Ask Bruce Perens Your Questions About How He Hopes to Get Open Source Developers Paid (postopen.org) 19
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)
Er, dude, it already exists (Score:3)
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:2)
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:3)
That's called "having a job." It's existed for centuries.
His goal is to get himself paid for doing nothing.
I remember him crying here about how I was interfering with his life's work because I was opposing the lies of the OSI about how Christine Petersen allegedly coined the term Open Source, he made it sound like he was going to be dying soon and I was single-handedly stopping him from saving FOSS before that happened.
Now he's got a different scam going, and wants more attention.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (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
The high level business model (Score:2)
sounds like the already successful "cooperative" in other industries.
Fairness (Score:3)
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:2)
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)
"...but in order to pay them there must be a source of revenue."
No, you don't understand. Revenue is a problem for someone else, "we" get paid. It doesn't have to work, it only has to make fanatics believe it.
"How will you stop the management component of this foundation eating all of that money"
LOLOL, you really don't understand. Bruce Perens IS the management component, eating all of that money is the end game.
How do you stop Steve Bannon from skimming off all the money for the wall? Same answer. It's
So, basically shareware 2.0? (Score:2)
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 t
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
who owns the means of production? (Score:2)
And people are offended when "open source" is likened to communism?
The difference between capitalism and communism, at risk of being reductionist, is who owns the means of production. What is being proposed is literally a change in who owns, and benefits from, the means of production of software. Now, if you believe in communist principles, ok, but don't be offended when someone literally promotes communism in software development and is called out for it.
Many of us read Animal Farm as middle schoolers an
Why (Score:2)
AI impact (Score:2)