Been thinking a lot about what comes after “free software” & “open source.” Both terms were coined when the tech industry (& the world) was a very different place. I think we’ve outgrown them.
-
Show this thread
-
Early thoughts: both concepts are too code-centric and too license-oriented. Many things that we think of as indispensable to modern open source projects are not included in the formal definitions. This is a good sign that we have another, as-yet-unnamed concept in play.
4 replies 13 retweets 128 likesShow this thread -
Things not included in either concept include: - community building - accepting contributions from other people - ethical use of software - distribution mechanisms - governance - use of paid vs free labor
10 replies 31 retweets 266 likesShow this thread -
And many more - I’ve made a whole huge list. Perhaps I will even
BLOG
12 replies 0 retweets 164 likesShow this thread -
Open source & free software licenses were designed to correct the power imbalance that existed 30 years ago - when large companies selling proprietary software held power over their users. “Take this software for free!” the licenses said. “Fix it yourself if something breaks.”
5 replies 4 retweets 52 likesShow this thread -
Open source and free software licenses gave power to the users - the individuals - at the expense of the companies.
2 replies 0 retweets 31 likesShow this thread -
But that balance of power has shifted over the last 30 years. What we are noticing is that free and open source software is now accumulating power once again in the _companies_, since they’re the end the users of the software, rather than individuals.
5 replies 9 retweets 69 likesShow this thread
This also correlates to a shift back towards a mainframe/cloud mentality wherein computational power and the machines that run software are centralized.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.