,
12 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
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.
Both terms were coined when the tech industry (& the world) was a very different place. I think we’ve outgrown them.
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.
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.
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
- community building
- accepting contributions from other people
- ethical use of software
- distribution mechanisms
- governance
- use of paid vs free labor
And many more - I’ve made a whole huge list. Perhaps I will even
✨BLOG✨
😱
✨BLOG✨
😱
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.”
“Take this software for free!” the licenses said. “Fix it yourself if something breaks.”
Open source and free software licenses gave power to the users - the individuals - at the expense of the companies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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?
Law and law-adjacent folks: any pointers?
