Post open source: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:08, 30 January 2013

Latest revision as of 23:37, 20 August 2024

(30 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2017}}

Post-Open Source, also called Post Open Source Software (POSS), represents an emerging movement among developers (in particular, [[Open Source]] developers) where, in reaction to complex compliance requirements of the license/permission culture, more code is being posted into repositories without any license whatsoever, implying an extreme disregard for the current license regimes, including Copyleft.

Post Open (for Post Open Source) is a proposed successor to the [[Open source|Open Source]] software paradigm, originated by [[Bruce Perens]], the creator of the [[Open Source Definition]] and co-founder of the [[Open Source Initiative]]. It is promoted at the web site [https://PostOpen.org/ PostOpen.org]

"POSS" was first used by James Governor, founder of analyst firm RedMonk, who reportedly said <ref>https://twitter.com/monkchips/status/247584170967175169</ref> "Younger devs today are about POSS -- Post open source software. F*** the license and governance, just commit to github".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/github-needs-take-open-source-seriously-208046|title=GitHub needs to take open source seriously|author=Simon Phipps|publisher=Infoworld|date=30 November 2012|accessdate=30 January 2013}}</ref> According to Louis Villa, when even "...the open license ecosystem assumes that sharing can't (or even shouldn't) happen without explicit permission in the form of licenses", developers vote their dissent through POSS <ref>http://tieguy.org/blog/2013/01/27/taking-post-open-source-seriously-as-a-statement-about-copyright-law/</ref>.

'''Post open source''', also called "post open-source software (POSS)", was a 2012/2013 noticed movement<ref>[https://opensource.com/business/14/8/interview-michael-tiemann-red-hat How to think like open source pioneer] by Michael Tiemann (5 Aug 2014)</ref><ref name="infoworld" /> among [[software developer]]s, in particular [[open-source software]] developers. The interpretation was that this was a reaction to the complex compliance requirements of the [[software license]]/[[permission culture]], noticed by more code being posted into repositories without any license whatsoever, implying a disregard for the current license regimes, including [[copyleft]] as supporter of the current [[copyright]] system ("[[Copyright reform movement]]").

The motivation for a no-license approach varies widely, but is perhaps primarily on account of the overheads involved in maintaining the permission/license regime. It is notable that the well-known Free Culture activist, [[Nina Paley]] released her critically-acclaimed film, "Sita Sings the Blues" in a CC0 license (ie., placed it in public ___domain) in January 2013 <ref>http://blog.ninapaley.com/2013/01/18/ahimsa-sita-sings-the-blues-now-cc-0-public-___domain/</ref>.

==History==

"POSS" was first used by James Governor, founder of analyst firm RedMonk, who reportedly said <ref>{{cite web|url=https://twitter.com/monkchips/status/247584170967175169|title=Dai Jesting|work=Twitter}}</ref> ''"Youngeryounger devs today are about POSS --– Post open -source software. F***fuck the license and governance, just commit to github"."''<ref name="infoworld">{{cite web|url=http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/github-needs-take-open-source-seriously-208046 |title=GitHub needs to take open source seriously |author=Simon Phipps|publisher=Infoworld|date=30 November 2012|accessdate=30 January 2013}}</ref> According to Louis[[Luis Villa]], when even ''"...the open license ecosystem assumes that sharing can't (or even shouldn't) happen without explicit permission in the form of licenses"'', developers vote their dissent through POSS .<ref>{{cite web|url=http://tieguy.org/blog/2013/01/27/taking-post-open-source-seriously-as-a-statement-about-copyright-law/ |title=Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture |publisher=tieguy.org|author=[[Luis Villa]]|year=2013}}</ref> This was mostly ineffective, since the default in international copyright law is "all rights reserved", and some dedication to the public ___domain or license is necessary if the software is to be shared with the public without legal ambiguity.

== Precursor ==

In 2004 [[Daniel J. Bernstein]] pushed a similar idea with his [[License-free software]], where he neither placed his software ([[qmail]], [[djbdns]], [[daemontools]], and [[ucspi-tcp]]) into [[public ___domain]] nor released it with a [[software license]].<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20040622043020/http://qmail.org/not-open-source.html "qmail is not open source"] – an article published by Russell Nelson, OSI board member in 2004</ref> But, with end of 2007 he dedicated his software in the [[public ___domain]] with an explicit waiver statement.<ref>{{cite web

|year=2007

|url=http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html

|title=Frequently asked questions from distributors

|accessdate=2008-01-18

}}</ref><ref>{{cite web

|year=2007

|url=http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html

|title=Information for distributors

|accessdate=2008-01-18

}}</ref>

==See also==

* [[License-free software]]

* [[Anti-copyright notice]]

* [[Copyright reform movement]]

==References==

{{reflist|30em}}

[[Category:Software distribution]]