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