Thoughts on Post-Open Source?
Thoughts on Post-Open Source?
'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?
You're viewing a single thread.
I mean just license it as such right? You can't say it's completely free for anyone to use then complain you aren't getting paid.
This is a common misconception. A couple times, it's even gone to court. Both Cisco and Best Buy had to pay nontrivial amounts of money, and in the case of Best Buy, it hilariously had to give to the plaintiffs its inventory of TVs which contained software copyrighted and GPL-licensed by the plaintiffs.
GPL licensed does not in any world mean "completely free for anyone to use". For end-users, it does. For companies that want to resell the GPL-licensed software, it means, you can do it for free if you comply with the terms of the license, and if you don't, then you can't. There's not a monetary exchange, but there are licensing terms you need to comply with which were apparently important enough to the people that wrote the software for them to apply that particular license instead of some other one.
If you disagree, that's completely fine, but that doesn't mean you can all of a sudden resell their software and use their work for free, even if there are other people (in compliance with the license) who can.
From the link, Best Buy paid $90,000. That's awesome! Wouldn't there be a ton of opportunity in suing these big, careless companies that are violating open source? Seems like this would be "the solution"
I think mostly they prefer for people to just fix their delivery to comply with the license, as opposed to causing antagonism towards the community by going straight to a lawsuit. But yes, there are definitely teeth to it if some company for whatever reason doesn't want to fix their infringement.
That's all well and good. But it still doesn't change the whole not getting paid issue. Unless they violated the license lol
Violating the (spirit of) the license (without violating the letter, because of loopholes in the license) is exactly what Perens is talking about.
He's not "complaining he isn't getting paid." I think it's pretty rare that the people working on open source software are actually hurting for money or anything. He's complaining that the actual practice of how the software is being used, RHEL and Android on phones and etc, isn't doing well at reflecting the vision of the computing world the GPL was supposed to create. Then, as one possible solution, he's proposing to kill two birds with one stone with a new license where the companies that are skirting the license right now can have to fund the development of particular types of open source software that need to get done anyway but is lacking right now (because of lack of profit motive).
You might or might not agree with his thesis; as much as I think it's interesting and insightful I have some reservations about it. I just thought you were misunderstanding his whole argument as being in terms of money, that's all.
What were they not complying with?
IANAL and I don't have the actual court papers, but is seems to me they were violating GPLv2 Section 6.
Essentially, what this section says is that if you distribute a chunk of software (in this case, the firmware embedded in a smart TV) that in its compiled form contains part or all of a software library covered by this license (in this case, Busybox, which is a bundle of common shell utilities you use every day in a Linux terminal, compacted into one binary to fit onto embedded systems), you have to do one of these four things:
-
Package the source code of the GPL'd library with the distribution itself. If your executable contains a version of it modified by you, those modifications must be in the source. In this case this would require putting the raw source code for Busybox on the TV itself in a place the user could access it, or perhaps bundling a flash drive with the source code on it with the TV.
-
Include a written offer to send the source to anyone who asks for it, at no cost (except for the cost of transfer itself if applicable, e.g. postage), and honor that offer for at least 3 years. I believe this is what most companies that use GPL'd code do.
-
If the distribution happens at a designated place, offer the source at that same place. This is mostly relevant to download pages, not physical products.
-
Verify that the customer already has a copy of the source distributed in advance. This is a specific edge case that makes no sense in this context.
This lawsuit was brought about because the sellers of the TVs that contained Busybox were not doing any of the above four things, and those sellers ignored or ghosted plaintiff when plaintiff contacted them about it.
-
wouldn't a company like best buy have millions of dollars of inventory of TVs?
They were selling TVs with GPL-licensed software inside without complying with the terms of the GPL. When challenged, their defense was some version of "But it’s completely free for anyone to use!"
They didn't have to give up every one of their TVs of any model, just the infringing models (the ones that used Busybox without complying with the GPL).
What did they infringe on?
Busybox
GPL isn't the only open source license. This comment is beyond bizarre because it seems to imply that all open source software is GPL? And of course when software is licensed as GPL, that license can be enforced when someone breaks it (like your example). The original comment never mentioned GPL, it was about when something was licensed ss free. So when you give an example where it wasn't licensed as such, what was the point?
The entire linked article is talking about "open source" in terms of the GPL specifically.
Well the question is, how would such a license look like? Or would it be a contract and not a license?
I guess I should ask a lawyer these questions, but I wanted to see what others here thought about the idea.
You can buy a license to use software. That's how a lot of software works.
This to me is a good question. The lack of something concrete that sounds like "yes, that would definitely work" is something that makes me have reservations about this whole thesis... but that said I think it has some merit.
Mysql and Qt already have a pretty solid model, where there's a GPL-enabled alternative that the community can use, or you can pay a fee to use the commercial version. You could scale that up to something where if you want to pay a certain fee, you can use lots of currently-GPL software (maybe any that's been assigned to the FSF or something with the FSF shepherding the whole thing). Then, we can stop the sort of benign neglect of companies that are sloppy with their licensing of uboot or Busybox, and just tell them to start paying the fee if they don't feel like dotting all their "i"s as far as licensing, and then use the fees to fund development of open source software that's needed but doesn't have a lot of motivated developers working on it.
I'm not as convinced that it's necessary as Perens is. Like I think he overblows by quite a lot the impact of RHEL skirting their licensing, because in his mind RHEL is such a big part of the computing world when in reality it's not. But it sounds like he's describing real problems and the solutions make some version of good sense to me.