Post open source: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:42, 4 February 2013

Latest revision as of 23:37, 20 August 2024

(25 intermediate revisions by 16 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 software]] 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]

'''Post-Open Sourceopen source''', also called Post"post Openopen-source Source Softwaresoftware (POSS)", representswas ana emerging2012/2013 noticed movement<ref>[https://opensource.com/business/14/8/interview-michael-tiemann-red-hat amongHow developersto think like open source pioneer] by Michael Tiemann (5 Aug 2014)</ref><ref name="infoworld" /> among [[software developer]]s, in particular, [[Open open-source software]] developers). where,The ininterpretation was that this was a reaction to the complex compliance requirements of the [[software license]]/[[permission culture]], noticed by more code is being posted into repositories without any license whatsoever, implying an extremea disregard for the current license regimes, including [[Copyleftcopyleft]]. as supporter of the current [[copyright]] system ("[[Copyright reform movement]]").

==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>

==MotivationSee also==

* [[License-free software]]

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 (i.e., 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>.

* [[Anti-copyright notice]]

* [[Copyright reform movement]]

==References==

{{reflist|30em}}

[[Category:Software distribution]]