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.
-
-
Show 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
Show this thread -
And many more - I’ve made a whole huge list. Perhaps I will even
BLOG
Show 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.”
Show this thread -
Open source and free software licenses gave power to the users - the individuals - at the expense of the companies.
Show 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.
Show this thread -
And so we are seeing calls for licenses that shift power back to the authors - who are often still individuals or collectives rather than companies.
Show this thread -
The OSI can persist in its insistence that “open source” means transferring power to the user, but if they do, I think they’re missing the larger point of their movement.
Show this thread -
If we want free and open source software to continue to be about giving power to individuals at the expense of companies, then it’s time for a change.
Show this thread -
I want to read more about the legal aspects of open source licensing - both generally in terms of what kind of case law exists, and specifically around what constitutes "distribution."
Show this thread -
But IANAL, so I've googled, but I don't know how to evaluate the trustworthiness of the results. I assume that in law, as in software development, there are a lot of bad takes out there.
Law and law-adjacent folks: any pointers?Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There is the idea of coop source: https://coopsource.org
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
this is probably already in your radar, but in the off chance it isn't:https://words.steveklabnik.com/what-comes-after-open-source …
-
I agree with much of what he said. The Ember.js community created a scoring system for addons on
@EmberObserver that most projects include in their readme. Very much like a test for openness.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I wish the talk I did at
@PressNomics was recorded. It was about this exact subject. Open source ideology was anti-capitalist and revolutionary. It was also short-sighted and aggressively libertarian. Equity and common good has given way to corporatization and monopolization. -
I'd love to compare notes or collaborate on something. I have a ton of notes, two half-finished blog posts, and a conference talk to draw from.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I lived in a Co-op residence (WCRI) at Waterloo. Every resident signed up for 2-3 hours of work/week, rather than hire staff. So we washed dishes, pots, served food, mopped, did general repairs, etc. Fees were about 2/3 of other residences, and it fostered a sense of community.
-
I've been taking part in the shareware and open source community for thirty years for the same type of reason: I'd rather help out a small business or a community than send my cash to some corporation. Maybe 'Co-op' could be part of the name of the new organization.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.