For the next generation of OSS, it would be wise to stand together and introduce a new licensing model: if a company builds a product using an open-source library and reaches a specific revenue threshold (e.g., $XX million), they must compensate the authors proportional to the library's footprint in their codebase and/or its execution during daily operations.
People have been saying this since the 80s. Reality is that without open source, this industry would be tiny compared to what it is. So many times open source has enabled an entire sub industry (i.e. ISPs in the 90s, Database, SaaS in the 2010s, now AI). And most of it is someone solving a problem that was worth solving for their own use, and for whatever reason made no sense to commercialize by selling licenses.
> on the backs of ten thousands of now-burnt-out maintainers.
Money isn't the motivation for most "free" open source. If it was, the authors would release as commercial software and maybe as "source available". That someone can use open source to build businesses has been the engine for the entire industry. In other words, the thought that maintainers quitting maintaining is some problem that can be fixed if we only paid them is non-sequitur. A lot of it is that people age out, get bored with their project, or simply want to do something else. Not accepting money for maintaining open source is a good way to ensure it stays something you can walk away from and something where the people attached to the money have zero leverage.
I do think that a lot of maintainers struggle with pushy and sometimes nasty people that take the fun out of what is a "labor of love."
> exploiting entities have never shared substantial or equitable profits back.
If I want to make money, I sell commercial software, SaaS or PaaS.
> they must compensate the creators proportional to the library's footprint in their codebase and/or its execution during daily operations
One of the more interesting uses of open source is to level the playing field. For example, there was a time when database was silly expensive. Several open source products emerged that never would have been viable commercially without the long term promise of "free" and the assurance of having source code. To have a license with a cost bomb on it would just ensure that people would use another choice.
Especially as the cost of producing code drops, the value of libraries decreases.
The only model I've seen work in reality is open core (aside from the very few projects that have been successful with patronage)
If you want to make money, make commercial software and sell it. It's funny to see people complain about people taking what they gave out for free, it's like having a lemonade stand with a huge sign saying "free" and being surprised people take the lemonade.
The MIT license and other "pushover" licenses was built in the pre-LLM era.
I don't think it is fit for purpose anymore since now maintainers are getting burnt out and most code is now being generated from OSS.
A new OSS license for the AI age must be made for newer libraries, projects and existing projects that want to change licenses.
a) volunteers
b) brief windows in which corporate decision makers are driven by ideology and good intentions, where those decisions carry momentum or license obligations (see Android, and how Google tries to claw it back)
c) corporations attempting to shape the larger landscape or commoditize their complement, see Facebook's work on React, or contributions to the Linux kernel
Of the above, only (a) or rarely and temporarily (b) are interested in collective wellbeing. Most of the labor and resources go into making moats and doing the bare minimum to keep the shared infrastructure alive.
Now companies selling LLM coding agents enter the scene, promising to eliminate their customers' dependence on the commons, and whatever minimal obligations they had to support it. Why use a standard solution when what used to be a library can now be generated on the fly and be part of your moat? Spot a security bug? Have an agent diagnose and fix it. No need to contribute to any upstream. Hell, no upstream would even accept whatever the LLM made without a bunch of cleanup and massaging to get it to conform with their style guides and standards.
Open source, free software, they're fundamentally about code. The intended audience for such code is machine and human. They're not compatible with a development cycle where craft is not a consideration and code is not meant to be read and understood. That is all to say: yes, it is unrealistic to expect companies to donate anything to the commons if they can find any other avenue. They prefer a future where computer programs are purchased by the token from model providers to one where they might have to unintentionally help out a competitor.
This is misguided. Maintenance of LLM code has a far greater cost than generating it.
> They prefer a future where computer programs are purchased by the token from model providers to one where they might have to unintentionally help out a competitor.
I don't think that's even a thought. The thought is that "no one can tell me no".
In corporate reality they don't care. They have their product, requirement. As it starts to rot it's easier to rebuild than to maintain.
If you can ask for an LLM with a skeleton crew team now they can do it all again in five years time with the next level of LLMs.