Bruce Perens idea of a 'Post Open Source' licensing model

[Moonwards]

Somebody sent me a link to this video in which Bruce Perens outlines what he calls a 'Post Open Source' model. It was posted 5 months ago and there is a related website that is very minimal.

It seems like a version of dual licensing to me, but turned into a broader system backed by many projects so that it can both be better enforced and easier to comply with by companies that choose to pay for the right to use things in closed source. Based on the lack of material on it so far, it would take years for this to get enough traction to have a hope of becoming an effective system. I wonder what others think about it.

The video is an hour long but worth it. More so if you have a sophisticated understanding of open source, which I don't.

https://youtu.be/vTsc1m78BUk

[drummyfish]

Just quick read some of those slides and from what I understood I don't like it at all. Very complicated, overcomplicating an already overcomplicated licenses, it smells by an effort to restrict freedom rather than increase it.

EDIT: Also a bit confused, I've already heard the term post open source and IIRC I think it was people just saying don't use licenses. Not sure if that is related to this or not.

[PeterX]

Just quick read some of those slides and from what I understood I don't like it at all. Very complicated, overcomplicating an already overcomplicated licenses, it smells by an effort to restrict freedom rather than increase it.

EDIT: Also a bit confused, I've already heard the term post open source and IIRC I think it was people just saying don't use licenses. Not sure if that is related to this or not.

No, this is completely unrelated.

And the general idea is like you know from Qt, Chrome and others: You can choose between free access to and usage of tthe source code, or choose a different license if you pay, then you can use it without free SW restrictions applying.
One problem is how to handle the payments:
- to whom
- how much
- via which payment/copyright center. (I can't imagine a decentral solution to this, but maybe I am missing something.)

Greetings
Peter

[Jastiv]

I remember watching that video awhile ago. I was hoping for something amazing, but let us just say I was unimpressed. It appeared to attempt to solve the problem of developers making money, but didn't really do much, and in fact was a negative for user freedom. I actually forgot most of the contents of the video it was that bad. Actually, I was discussing the idea elsewhere that perhaps there should be a way for users to directly pay developers to get the type of software they want rather than the current system of either A. code it yourself. Or B. wait around to see if developers "feel like" implementing the feature that you want. I feel that game mod makers of any reasonable skill should be able to make a full time job income just making mods for freedom respecting software games. It would make free software sustainable, and of course fix the major issues with it without changing any software license, it would be entirely a business model change so we can destroy the proprietary game development model once and for all. I mean, once a few game developers get crazy rich with new improved freedom respecting software business model(s), I think the whole house of proprietary cards would eventually collapse.

The developers, of course, would have to write software that users actually requested rather than just "scratching only their own itches" but on the plus side they would never have to touch proprietary software development. Also they would feel better about themselves because they would be of service to others.

[PeterX]

... perhaps there should be a way for users to directly pay developers to get the type of software they want rather than the current system of either A. code it yourself. Or B. wait around to see if developers "feel like" implementing the feature that you want.

Nothing hinders you, me or anyone else to pay developers for exactly that.

The advantage of the proprietary software industry is that it is indeed an industry. That means developers (not neccessarily the programmers) earn a lot and users pay not much (compared to what the devs get).

In free SW we would need to agree as many users on a single specification to have the same effect. That's where crowdfunding comes into play.

So you could go and start a crowdfunding initiaitive for a game engine and/or assets you like.