This survey is from the Post Open project ( postopen.org [will open in separate tab or window]). Please help us by filling this out, even if it’s to say you don’t approve of our project. You will have a chance to tell us anything you like at the end of the survey.
Two of the “questions” are just statements
Unpaid Open Source developers will have trouble fulfilling increasing government requirements, for example the EU Cyber Security Act.
Emerging companies like Tidelift, which pay developers, will solve the current problems of Open Source.
At first glance they seem to be. They could include ‘Do you agree?’ appended to them to make them more comprehensible. I didn’t create the survey nor am I involved in the project. Just following it’s progress. You could email Bruce to pass on your feedback.
Reading their solutions is interesting; wanted to call out the following because it plays nice if you don’t agree with their whole prescription:
Don’t dilute the Open Source brand. Post-Open will never call itself Open Source, because it has different rules. The Post Open license actually enforces that.
Drew DeVault noted the same in So you want to compete with or replace open source.
I think having ‘Open’ in the name muddies the waters a bit though. The full name almost makes the project sound anti open source, which it isn’t.
I think it could be a great solution. I’ve never considered it before. That said there’s one sticking point for me:
Apportion payment to developers based on software use by paid users and the size of their contribution to that software.
That^. That needs a lot more detail. If they provide solid details there that most can agree on, then I will actually be on board with the solution.
Yeah, translating “size of their contribution” to a dollar amount is going to be inherently political. If they’re leaving it open ended to let projects figure it out then that could go poorly…
At first glance it looks like yet another organization like Ethical Source or FUTO, attempting to flip the definition of open-source with their proprietary (source-available) dogmas. I hope that I am wrong.
