Listened to another General Intellect Unit episode on Post Open Source. A bit of a downer this one, to be honest – it’s about FOSS being ‘dead’. Free software having died a while back, and open-source being recently departed. There are many valid points. It’s based on this article. Need more time to digest it and read the article.


@neil I read the article, and agree with a lot of it, but they are missing something that is hinted at in their final statements:

"in a word, capitalism.

"if post-open source wants to not die the same death, it will need to explicitly and aggressively fight its greatest existential threat."

I see lots of anti-capitalist communities creating and/or adopting their own software.

If they can't get at the code, they will fail.

Call it what you want.

Non-dominium agreements might work...

@bhaugen @neil nevermind the irony of them using big-C capitalistic infrastructure to carry a pro-marxist? angle about free software supposedly dying.

it's a lot of dissonance.

@bhaugen @neil

i mean forgetting the fact that argument takes mozilla and makes them the ultimate pass/fail test for all of open source.


@bhaugen @neil the original article proffered by someone who's been programming a decade.

i probably thought i knew everything after 10 years in the field too.

@bhaugen That's the main point I take from the article. That the aim is maximising a commons of software. And that copyleft fails to do it at scale because corporations will route around it entirely. And that open-source licensing fails to do it because it is just a cop out for the corporations anyway.

They seem to be saying public domain equivalent licenses or public/private licenses stand a better chance of avoiding corporate exploitation.

No clue if that's a valid point or not.

@neil I continue to think that one of the solutions to this set of problems is for cooperative communities to achieve enuf financial stability to pay software developers for their community, or better yet, for cooperatives of cooperatives. A nondominium agreement might be better than a license. In other words, if you are a participant in the agreement, you can use the software, get the code, etc. etc.

@bhaugen Thank you, I'll have to read up on non-dominium.

From CommonsTransition I found: "Non-dominium reflects the fact that no agent or combination of agents may have dominant control over the shared resources."

@neil Yeah, I learned about nondominium agreements from Kurt Laitner of Sensorica, but I understand Chris Cook did a lot of work with them:

Kyle Mitchell, a license lawyer, created this license which seems pretty much the same as a nondominium agreement:

@bhaugen Oh interesting, I saw Kyle Mitchell was mentioned in the original article with License Zero. Cross-license collaboratives looks much more interesting at first blush.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!