How Should the FOSS Movement Respond to Proprietary Software? (linux-magazine.com) 38
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)
respond condescendingly (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How many FOSS projects, unsupported by commercial entities, give you a new product on a schedule?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (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.
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:2)
'Steals' FOSS code?
Developer: "I wrote a new NIC driver that lowers CPU overhead and supports countless network chips, and I'm giving it away for free"
Lawyer: "Evil Corp has put your code in their new OS!"
Developer: "Let's sue! They can't profit off my work! It's mine!"
Observer: "I thought you gave it away?"
Developer: "Well yeah, but if anyone's going to profit off my work it's going to be me!"
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
economics (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, 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:2)
Please explain what feature of GPL is designed to benefit RMS and how exactly does it benefit RMS.
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
Propreitary software is easy (Score:2)
Proprietary software is damage . . . (Score:3)
. . . 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.
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?
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:3, 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...
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
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.
Remind me, what does the F in FOSS stand for? (Score:3)
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.