
A Cyclical Theory of Open Source - MilnerRoute
https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2018/12/21/cycles-oss/
======
bad_user
This is a critique of shared source licenses that are forks of open source
ones (like BSD), but with no-compete clauses attached, which as the author
argues, hurt the OSS ecosystem and don’t serve their intended purpose.

I happen to agree very much with the article.

The Open Source and Free Software ecosystems are under attack by companies
that want to eat their cake and have it too. There’s never been a stronger
need for defending their definitions as pushed forward by OSI and the FSF
respectively.

~~~
MaxBarraclough
The FSF used to use the term "semifree software" for this kind of thing, but
they now prefer to just go with non-free (
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html)
)

------
xte
A small, concise explanation IMO can be: software is an
implementation/modelisation of an idea. So not a product.

You may pay someone for his/shes expertise and time and resources, but you
can't pay him/her as you pay a car, a cheese, a house.

Since things change and need regular maintenance so consultancy/time it's not
exactly a oneshot thing many try to sell the idea of software as a product
before and as a service after.

Those people are really scared and disturbed by the idea of culture, knowledge
and free communication because that means in the first place demolish 90% of
them, and secondly reduce the remaining 10% from "human-gods" to mere
"workers/expert" for hire.

Since our society do not really learn nor remember things well they cyclically
find new/old way to keep their model up. In the past with mere ignorance and
marketing, after with lock-in, after with total lock-in (cloud/* as a
services) even after with controlling production by mere scale diversity (they
became too big to have real newcomers that may undermine their throne) and
private knowledge (thanks to continuous schools reforms and careful media
push).

Sometime they arrive to a point society explode so they have to back up, they
loose something but quickly recover. That's the cycle.

~~~
ghaff
I'd argue that software _is_ a product but it's a product that, especially in
its open source form, can be unbundled and--as with other unbundlings such as
newspapers--this makes it hard to build successful business models around it.

These hybrid license models are a terrible idea for the reasons that Stephen
goes into. But the difficulties of selling unbundled bits for large categories
of software are very real.

~~~
CharlesW
> _I 'd argue that software_ is _a product…_

You need much more than just software to build a real product or service.

As an example, you can sell LibreOffice[1]. But you're going to need people
for sales, support, marketing, finance, legal, etc.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice#Derivatives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice#Derivatives)

~~~
ghaff
Totally fair. I was using "software" as shorthand for "software product" in
the context of commercial licenses for same. You're right of course that
product != project and the unbundling of product attributes like the ones you
mention from bits that you can freely use is one of the core issues here.

------
benologist
Companies not 'paying it forward' to open source is just one small component
of the 'give nothing to anybody' playbook that sees corporations specialize in
evading taxes, redacting employee benefits, supplementing unlivable wages with
food stamps etc.

I think the only solution is to stop giving them our money and highlight their
greed.

------
nixpulvis
Interesting, as I see it we as a global (just America?) society are moving
towards an era of Public Purpose (if anything) in Schlesinger's model.

The notion that a powerful subculture (tech) is possibly in the opposite swing
doesn't seem like coincidence, but instead a natural reaction based on fear. I
suspect this pheonomenon isn't unique to this subculture in time, but I'm not
versed enough in history to give you a strong example. Maybe look into the
period at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

