I mean just license it as such right? You can't say it's completely free for anyone to use then complain you aren't getting paid.

Fuck no. A small business that is struggling to survive should be able to use WordPress for their website and Linux for their laptops without paying

TLDR: Companies should be required to pay developers for any open source software they use

You need to read the article yourself before writing TLDR. Spoiler: it is not about payments, it is about source code availability.

people are always going to be floating ways to save capitalism in the face of communities privileging freedom over greed.

this completely misses the point of free software, and fails to solve the problems Mr. Perens identifies with Open Source. He claims it fails to serve the "common person" (end users) and then proposes a solution that serves... only devs.

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... Indeed, Open Source is used today to surveil and even oppress them.

All these problems are already solved by free software. the rebranding of "open source" was a compromise on the principles of free software to make the movement palatable to profit-seekers. In the end, it predictably failed to improve anything. The solution isn't to reinvent the wheel, it's to stop making the wheel square because the square lobby insists they'll only use it if it's square. The solution is copyleft, and free software being used more than it's defanged cousin.

The common person doesn't know about Open Source, they don't know about the freedoms we promote which are increasingly in their interest

That's a feature, not a bug. On one hand, if people knew about free software they wouldn't be as good consumers. On the other hand, internals should be opaque to users; just as devs don't want to have to know how the logic gates in the CPU are routing their code to write code, end users shouldn't have to worry about the politics of the communities that developed their code.

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.

Great, let's inject more capitalism!

These are my thoughts regarding FOSS for a long time. The sense of facilitating the development and freedom of the project has been distorted years ago, when large corporations put their hands on this project, controlling it. Just look at the amount of "OpenSource" soft and services controlled by Google, M$, Amazon, FB ..... Yes, they are free to distribute and modifiable by devs, but mostly full of APIs from these corporations, not controllable by the user, subtracting their sovereignty and only modifiable with effort by people capable of understanding the scripts and redirects they contain. For a normal user it is increasingly irrelevant whether the project is FOSS or proprietary, while these products and the internet in general are in the hands of these companies.

A simple question is enough, which one do you prefer to use? FOSS projects from large corporations, or Freeware from small independent startups, if you don't have the knowledge to review the script anyway, almost impossible in millions of lines, with external references from large apps and services? It becomes decisions of mere trust, perhaps with the help of external services, such as WebKoll, Blacklight, Unfurl and similar, where in the end the license that the product has is irrelevant, with respect to security and privacy, often in question or not, in some like others. In the end only the intentions and ethics of the developer matter.

Yes, of course, the concept of OSS, FOSS and FLOSS requires a profound review and update, so that it does not become a destroyer of what it aims to protect and promote, a free internet.

• https://github.com/microsoft
• https://opensource.google/projects
• https://aws.amazon.com/es/opensource/
• https://opensource.fb.com/projects/
• https://code.gov ....

So, basically the opposite of BSD3 license

This is the best summary I could come up with:

RHEL stands for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, which in June, under IBM's ownership, stopped making its source code available as required under the GPL.

Pointing to popular applications from Apple, Google, and Microsoft, Perens says: "A lot of the software is oriented toward the customer being the product – they're certainly surveilled a great deal, and in some cases are actually abused.

The reason that doesn't often happen today, says Perens, is that open source developers tend to write code for themselves and those who are similarly adept with technology.

Perens acknowledges that a lot of stumbling blocks need to be overcome, like finding an acceptable entity to handle the measurements and distribution of funds.

Asked whether the adoption of non-Open Source licenses, by the likes of HashiCorp, Elastic, Neo4j, and MongoDB, represent a viable way forward, Perens says new thinking is needed.

Perens doesn't think the AGPL or various non-Open Source licenses focus on the right issue in the context of cloud companies.

The original article contains 1,837 words, the summary contains 164 words. Saved 91%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

I agree. Either use a business source license like Elastic and others, or fight for the installation of a third party that audits proprietary code for license use and sues if the rules haven't been followed. It's why I like the creative commons. They are quite realistic. Most of their licenses say: if you use this commercially, you have to pay. If not, then it's free.

People who claim business source licenses are "not opensource" sound like such capitalist shills to me. It's as if they're shouting from the rooftops "it's OK to fuck over opensource developers because principles matter more than reality".

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

what an idiot. the eval process is funny stupid and costly. the consequences will be companies both avoiding to use foss and also be less secure for using closed source. and then there is ai. code written with ai is not copyright-able and i bet anyone will prefer ai dumb code over costly foss code. may that dev rott in hell for this egomaniac idea of a free world.