171
Thoughts on Post-Open Source? (www.theregister.com)
submitted 10 months ago by actual_patience@programming.dev to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
79 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 20 points 10 months ago

I think that the RHEL example is out-of-place, since IBM ("Red Hat") is clearly exploiting a loophole of the GNU Public License. Similar loopholes have been later addressed by e.g. the AGPL and the GPLv3*, so I expect this one to be addressed too.

So perhaps, if the GPL is "not enough", the solution might be more GPL.

*note that the license used by the kernel is GPLv2. Cue to Android (for all intents and purposes non-free software) using the kernel, but not the rest.

[-] library_napper 4 points 10 months ago

What loophole? I think they're just blatantly violating it

[-] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago

They're still providing the code for people who buy the compiled software. And they are not restricting their ability to redistribute that code. So it's still compliant with the GPL in the letter. However, if you redistribute it, they'll refuse to service you further versions of the software.

It's clearly a loophole because they can argue "ackshyually, we didn't restrict you, we just don't want further businesses with you, see ya sucker".

[-] randomaside@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 10 months ago

Enshittification continues

[-] Atemu@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago

Is there a court case about this already? Because that's clearly not the intention of the GPL.

[-] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I don't think that there is one yet, otherwise it would get famous. Not sure though.

[-] TootSweet@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

So perhaps, if the GPL is "not enough", the solution might be more GPL.

Love this.

this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
171 points (90.5% liked)

Open Source

31165 readers
134 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
kevincox@lemmy.ml
CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml
Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml