> I have been part of the free and open source movement for the entirety of my 25+ year career in software. In the late 90s, I was one of the first people to advocate in my org for switching from proprietary tools like the Intel C compiler to open source alternatives like gcc.
I’m happy to give the author the benefit of the doubt on their contributions to FOSS beyond what’s stated in the article, but taken at face value, they are trying to establish a tone of authority by establishing that they championed… using someone else’s free or open source software rather than paying for something? That might be interesting if led to a frank discussion on the value and cost of FOSS vs contribution or funding vis-à-vis general sustainability, but it’s not.
Second, the term “open source startup” makes my skin crawl. If you’re a business focused on making profit, you’re just a commercial entity that happens to put out some open source stuff, using it to lure customers to your actual business. While personally I’m wary of this model as a potential trap, whatever, it’s fine. But this is not the only way FOSS gets done, and I don’t see any rethinking going on in the article.
> they are trying to establish a tone of authority by establishing that they championed… using someone else’s free or open source software rather than paying for something?
At that time, there was a lot of mistrust of FOSS (and the GPL in particular) in commercial organisations. That extended to even _using_ FOSS, and particularly something like a compiler, whose output "might be contaminated" by the FOSS licence.
That changed, slowly, in part because there were dedicated advocates who addressed people's concerns, showed them the actual licence text, etc, etc. It was a valuable contribution to the success of the concept of FOSS beyond just developers.
From today's perspective, I understand your concern, but perhaps this might help explain the OP's claim.
> At that time, there was a lot of mistrust of FOSS (and the GPL in particular) in commercial organisations.
I know, I’m an old enough programmer to have gone through the same thing in my career. Nonetheless, it’s a weird and kinda irrelevant credential to pull out in an article that purports to rethink open source licensing.
It's a rethink from the starting point of "everything should always be open source"
I think what's mentioned here is a pragmatic approach for software-centric businesses who want to be open-source but have realized that it doesn't really work without opening yourself to getting "Jeff'd" (ripped off by Amazon).
I was going to say that no one said everything had to be only open source, but of course one person did say that, but hardly anyone else.
And getting Jeff'd is not a problem. If you care about getting Jeff'd, then you simply want to sell software instead of create software. So go forth and sell, and don't pretend all the people who wrote those open source licences and live by them just somehow don't get the realities of life. They do. In fact they get things people like these guys don't. It's fine to have that weakness and just decide to sell under the traditional 80's terms, but don't pretend it's required and forced upon you and anyone else who chooses not to do the same somehow doesn't also live in reality.
We haven't talked enough about the second-order effects of open source on the economics of programming as a profession. I'm glad to see that starting to change[1].
Open source makes it harder to make a living as a programmer (at least an author of libraries, tools and infrastructure). Keeping server utilities closed source while still allowing clients to have full access to the source for client tools and self-hosting utilities seems like a pragmatic approach to the user-centric principles of open source.
This way, companies can continue to maintain some competitive advantage with their own investment into closed source code while still enabling users to own, control and contribute to software that runs on their machine.
The crucial element here is maintaining low switching costs by allowing a marketplace for _real_ competition on quality and cost of compatible services (as well as allowing self-hosting). This is the kind of software freedom that actually benefits users.
For a short time I was all about being a FOSS zealot using M$ on email signatures and such, because I had a confortable university student life where most bills were paid by someone else, then I realised what it means to have to pay bills for ourselves.
People are realising that PD and Shareware make more sense when one wants to make a living from software, the alternative being putting everything behind SaaS walls.
Not every use case can be done selling hardware to go alongside the software, consulting, conference talks, selling books (which are often pirated by those that should donate to FOSS)
The "die-hard free software enthusiast" inside me made it through the whole article, and was already low-level triggered, and then really got shot into the stratosphere with this down the bottom.
I'm not saying I've a better idea for how to reconcile software freedom, noxious capitalism, and the necessity of people who love software development and related areas getting rooves and bread, but...
The article does read a bit like an oil company telling you they love the planet, and that's why they have to keep mining it for oil as they work hard on renewable energy on the sides. "We're sorry".
> I have been part of the free and open source movement for the entirety of my 25+ year career in software. In the late 90s, I was one of the first people to advocate in my org for switching from proprietary tools like the Intel C compiler to open source alternatives like gcc.
I’m happy to give the author the benefit of the doubt on their contributions to FOSS beyond what’s stated in the article, but taken at face value, they are trying to establish a tone of authority by establishing that they championed… using someone else’s free or open source software rather than paying for something? That might be interesting if led to a frank discussion on the value and cost of FOSS vs contribution or funding vis-à-vis general sustainability, but it’s not.
Second, the term “open source startup” makes my skin crawl. If you’re a business focused on making profit, you’re just a commercial entity that happens to put out some open source stuff, using it to lure customers to your actual business. While personally I’m wary of this model as a potential trap, whatever, it’s fine. But this is not the only way FOSS gets done, and I don’t see any rethinking going on in the article.