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.”

  • @wahming
    link
    English
    110 months ago

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

      • @wahming
        link
        English
        310 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
          link
          fedilink
          310 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
            link
            English
            110 months ago

            Are reverse engineering software and binary patches currently illegal?

              • @wahming
                link
                English
                210 months ago

                Uh, genuine interest?

                • @mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  310 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.