How Should the FOSS Movement Respond to Proprietary Software?

Long-time FOSS-watcher Bruce Byfield writes that while people 'still dream of a completely free alternative, increasingly the emphasis in FOSS seems to be on accepting coexistence with proprietary software.'
Many, too, have always preferred the permissive BSD licenses, which permits combining FOSS and proprietary software. From some perspectives, Debian's newest [non-free firmware] repository or Nobara's popularity [a Fedora-based distro but with proprietary drivers and gaming applications] is simply an admission of the true state of affairs...

On the other hand, the FOSS philosophy may be weakened because it no longer has a strong advocate. Sixteen years ago, the FSF reached a peak of authority in the discussions of 2006-2007 about the structure of GPLv3 — then immediately lost that authority by not reaching a consensus. That was followed by the cancellation of Richard Stallman in 2017, which, deserved or not, had the side effect of silencing free software's most influential representative. Today the FSF that Stallman led continues to function, with Stallman returned to the board of directors, but its actions go unreported, and it seems to speak to a much smaller group of loyalists. The Linux Foundation, with its corporate emphasis, is not an adequate substitution. In these circumstances, there is reason to wonder whether FOSS has lost its way.

While the issue has yet to reach the mainstream, Bruce Perens, one of the coiners of the term 'open source' in 1998, is already trying to describe what he calls the Post-Open Source era. Not only does Perens believe that FOSS licenses no longer fulfill their original purpose, but they no longer inform or benefit the average user. According to Perens,

'Open Source has completely failed to serve the common person. For the most part, if they use us at all they do so through a proprietary software company's systems, like Apple iOS or Google Android, both of which use Open Source for infrastructure but the apps are mostly proprietary. The common person doesn't know about Open Source, they don't know about the freedoms we promote which are increasingly in their interest. Indeed, Open Source is used today to surveil and even oppress them.'

As a remedy, Perens proposes that licenses should be replaced by contracts. He envisions that companies pay for the benefits they receive from using FOSS. Compliance for each contract would be checked, renewed, and paid for yearly, and the payments would go towards funding FOSS development. Individuals and nonprofits would continue to use FOSS for free. In March 2024, Perens posted a draft Post-Open license. The draft includes a description of the contract-related files to be shipped with FOSS software, a description of the status of derivative works, how revenue is collected, and conditions of termination. The draft has yet to be reviewed by a lawyer, but what is immediately noticeable is how it draws on both contract language and FOSS licenses to produce something different.

Byfield concludes that 'free licenses are straining to respond to loopholes, and a discussion needs to be had about whether they are adequate to modern pressures.'

Read more of this story at Slashdot.