Bruce Perens, a co-author of the Open Source definition and co-founder of the Open Source Initiative, believes that the Open Source paradigm has reached a point where open licenses do not provide adequate protection, and it is time to create a revised concept of Post-Open Source that will harmonize the relationships between open-source developers and commercial companies. <\/p>\n
The GPL was originally developed solely as a license and is not a contract, which means it only aims to grant rights and cannot take away anyone's rights. According to Perens, the new licensing model should include contractual terms that are considered in accordance with the requirements of the legal area governing contractual relationships. Currently, companies have learned to circumvent the GPL licensing requirements regarding the provision of unrestricted access to source code. They use loopholes related to imposing additional contractual conditions on end users that restrict the secondary distribution of the open code underlying the product. <\/p>\n
For instance, when purchasing a RHEL distribution, the client signs a support and update agreement with Red Hat, which limits the redistribution of data and mentions the right to terminate the agreement in case of discrepancies between the actual installed and purchased copies of RHEL, forcing a choice between the freedom to manage software and maintaining the status of a Red Hat client. The patches provided for RHEL that address vulnerabilities apply to GPL code, and according to the license, users have the right to distribute them, but this may be perceived as a breach of contract with Red Hat and may lead to the cessation of the company's services. Previously, when changes were published in the CentOS repository, the community turned a blind eye to such manipulations, but after the change in policy regarding access to the source code of RHEL packages, there arose a need to revise the mechanisms of interaction between open project developers and the companies that utilize their work. <\/p>\n
A Post-Open Source koncepci\u00f3 keretein bel\u00fcl javasolt az Open Source fogalm\u00e1t kiterjeszteni olyan elemekkel, amelyek tov\u00e1bbi felt\u00e9teleket szabnak a kereskedelmi felhaszn\u00e1l\u00e1sra, \u00e9s meghat\u00e1rozz\u00e1k a fejleszt\u0151k \u00e9s a v\u00e1llalatok k\u00f6z\u00f6tti interakci\u00f3t a tisztess\u00e9ges visszacsatol\u00e1s megszerz\u00e9se \u00e9rdek\u00e9ben. Azok a nyeres\u00e9gek, amelyeket a ny\u00edlt szoftver haszn\u00e1lat\u00e1val a c\u00e9gek realiz\u00e1lnak, arra \u00f6szt\u00f6nzik \u0151ket, hogy vagy r\u00e9szt vegyenek a fejleszt\u00e9sben, vagy d\u00edjat fizessenek, amelyet a k\u00f6zvetlen\u00fcl \u00e9rintett fejleszt\u0151k k\u00f6z\u00f6tt osztanak sz\u00e9t. A nem kereskedelmi alkalmaz\u00e1sok \u00e9s egy\u00e9ni felhaszn\u00e1l\u00f3k sz\u00e1m\u00e1ra a k\u00f3d tov\u00e1bbra is ingyenes marad, \u00e9s mint kor\u00e1bban, egy licenc keretein bel\u00fcl \u00e9rv\u00e9nyes\u00fcl, szerz\u0151d\u00e9ses elemek n\u00e9lk\u00fcl. <\/p>\n
Az egyik alternat\u00edva szerint \u00e9vente esed\u00e9kes megfelel\u0151s\u00e9gi ellen\u0151rz\u00e9s (compliance) bevezet\u00e9se javasolt, amely ut\u00e1n a v\u00e1llalat megkapja az \u00f6sszes jogot a Post-Open Source elv alapj\u00e1n terjesztett szoftver haszn\u00e1lat\u00e1ra. Az enged\u00e9ly megszerz\u00e9s\u00e9re \u00e1tutalt forr\u00e1sok \u00f6szt\u00f6n\u00f6zni fogj\u00e1k a fejleszt\u00e9st. R\u00e1ad\u00e1sul a d\u00edjfizet\u00e9s lehet\u0151v\u00e9 teszi, hogy ne csak saj\u00e1t maguknak \u00e9s a technol\u00f3gi\u00e1kban j\u00e1rtas szakembereknek \u00edrjanak k\u00f3dot, hanem id\u0151t sz\u00e1nhassanak k\u00e9nyelmes alkalmaz\u00e1sok l\u00e9trehoz\u00e1s\u00e1ra a v\u00e9gfelhaszn\u00e1l\u00f3k \u00e9rdekeinek figyelembev\u00e9tel\u00e9vel. <\/p>\n