156

Perens says there are several pressing problems that the open source community needs to address.

"First of all, our licenses aren't working anymore," he said. "We've had enough time that businesses have found all of the loopholes and thus we need to do something new. The GPL is not acting the way the GPL should have done when one-third of all paid-for Linux systems are sold with a GPL circumvention. That's RHEL."

Another straw burdening the Open Source camel, Perens writes, "is that 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."

Post-Open, as he describes it, is a bit more involved than Open Source. It would define the corporate relationship with developers to ensure companies paid a fair amount for the benefits they receive. It would remain free for individuals and non-profit, and would entail just one license.

Whether it can or not, Perens argues that the GPL isn't enough. "The GPL is designed not as a contract but as a license. What Richard Stallman was thinking was he didn't want to take away anyone's rights. He only wanted to grant rights. So it's not a contract. It's a license. Well, we can't do that anymore. We need enforceable contract terms."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 16 points 10 months ago

You want open source treated well? Remove IP protections from closed-source projects.

It's like patents versus trade secrets. If you show your work and agree to let anyone play with it, there are incentives provided. If you rely on secrecy... and people figure it out anyway... tough shit.

[-] wahming 1 points 10 months ago

Can you provide some examples of software benefiting from IP protections like you mention?

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

You want examples of software protected by copyrights, trademarks, and/or patents?

[-] wahming 3 points 10 months ago

You said 'if people figure it out anyway', so I was interested in an example where people are able to figure it out but not allowed to duplicate it

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

Reverse-engineering. Binary patches. Basically a free-for-all for anyone who owns a legal copy of a thing.

Please be advised I won't give two shits about any hair-splitting over the word "owns."

[-] wahming 1 points 10 months ago

Are reverse engineering software and binary patches currently illegal?

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

In some contexts.

Is there a particular goal for this rhetorical poking?

[-] wahming 2 points 10 months ago
[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

Sorry, it just sounds like it was leading to some "ah-HA!" reversal, being so brief and general in response to normative statements about a complex topic.

Removing DRM is generally somewhere between outright illegal and getting attacked by flesh-eating lawyers.

Blizzard killed an independent Warcraft / Starcraft server called BNetD.

Nintendo's whole attitude toward emulation is infuriating nonsense pushing for digital art to slowly rot.

this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
156 points (95.3% liked)

Open Source

31165 readers
115 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