I sympathize with the concern driving these hybrid license experiments. I agree corporations parasitizing the software #commons is a problem. But to me, the deeper problem is the corporation being the dominant model of political-economic governance. The more radical solution is replacing tech corporations (and startups aiming for IPO or acquisition) with networks of co-ops, which can collaborate to make sure all commons contributors can thrive. But these hybrid licenses make that harder.
When the phrase "#OpenSource" was coined, as a rebranding of "free software", the theory was that explaining the concept in more business-friendly language would make businesses more willing to release the code they fund as #FreeCode. 20 years later, the results are in, and it turns out that theory was wrong. We can debate at length about *why* tech companies extract far more value from free code than they contribute back to it, but that's what happens and there's no sign that's going to change.
I don't think the theory said anything about whether they'll contribute back more than the value they extract. And if as you said, the theory was that businesses will be more willing to release the code they fund, then I think the theory was right. Linux kernel is one example, but I'm sure there are many other projects where most contributors' emails end with a domain of a company who needs that project to run their business.
So I'd say the theory worked, but it missed the point. We didn't forsee the side effects. We didn't predict SaaS.
> I don't think the theory said anything about whether they'll contribute back
The pitch was that the corporate sector would fund most free code development (though there would still be hobbyists/ students making unpaid contributions). The argument was that talking about software freedom would scare them off and prevent that. Turns out that despite "open source" becoming the standard term, not-for-profit entities (including co-ops) still fund far more free code dev than for-profits.
>> I don't think the theory said anything about whether they'll contribute back
Don't twist my words.
> whether they'll contribute back MORE than the value they extract
It obviously said they will contribute back. And they do. Your argument was that they extract more value than they contribute.
Now I have no idea how one'd measure how much value is "extracted", especially that using a piece of code doesn't diminish its value to other users.
You're saying that we hoped that most of the work would be corporate-funded. Well, in some projects, like Linux Kernel, it is - apparently only 16% of the contributions were from unpaid volunteers.
OTOH, there are projects like OpenSSL and GPG which are short on manpower because everybody uses them but nobody wants to maintain them, except for a few volunteers.
So I think there's some nuance there. Some projects succeeded according to the theory. Some ended up in big trouble. Some have proprietary forks offered as SaaS. But what determines how a particular project ends up? What is the reason some of them benefit from corporate interest, and others suffer from it?
Oh, you meant that private comercial license you can buy from the author as an alternative to the public license on the code... well, ok, that is dual licensing. I thought you were referring to "free software license + additional restriction" like with the "Commons Clause" as dual licensing, that's what confused me.
yeah this one looks interesting, but I'm not sure how effective it would be against "I'm not doing anything that would infringe copyright", eg. SaaS. Patents would probably give it more teeth, but AFAIK only corpos can afford patents...
Would also be interesting to see OSI or FSF's opinion on the license, maybe it would actually qualify as a Free Software or Open Source license.
Welcome to your niu world ! We are a cute and loving international community Ｏ(≧▽≦)Ｏ !