> GPL usage has collapsed from 72% in 2009 to just 15% in 2024—a 57 percentage point freefall. Meanwhile, permissive licenses (MIT, Apache, BSD) that enable corporate appropriation without reciprocal obligations have surged from 28% to 85% over the same period.

No source is given for these questionable statistics. It makes me suspect that the entire point of the article is to make people unquestionably accept the statement that GPL usage “has collapsed”. It also speaks about Stallman exclusively in the past tense.

I’m all for criticizing web3 and performative open source. But this misses the mark.

“This is the Stallman Paradox: the growing chasm between our intellectual reverence for genuine free software principles and our practical convergence on venture capital-optimized extraction models that merely cosplay as "open source."”

…ok?

What does RMS have to do with this? What does the GPL have to do with this?

Such a letdown.

You can immediately tell that the author doesn't know what he's talking about when he bundles together Stallman and open source.

> Have you ever wondered why we celebrate Richard Stallman as a visionary prophet of digital freedom while simultaneously abandoning every principle he fought for?

Since when has Stallman changed his principles?

This is just incoherent drivel. The headline suggests there is some point being made about "Web3", which is apparently about "economic alignment through tokens, transparent on-chain value flows, DAO governance giving communities real control, blockchain enabling true decentralization"

Well, yeah, okay I guess? But then, there was a brief AWS outage, which then implies that "millions of people simultaneously experienced digital serfdom."

And the solution is... more GPL? I don’t know? And neither does the author? Because the real issue here is whether we’ll have "the courage to design your way through it"? Which doesn't sound like a licensing issue at all?

This is crypto spam content

The author is mixing a lot of issues here.

Especially the GPL vs Permissive License conflation with the Corporate Hosting problem.

Also, the sociological phenom of tech people falling into culty ideals is really interesting and maybe a bit problematic.

This just seems like a lot of random sentences strung together. What Stallman says is very clear and very simple. You're also free to work on Free Software any time that you want, and free to make sure the devices in your life adhere to Free Software principles. That has nothing to do with OSS, other than OSS makes itself as available to copyleft as it is to copyright.

I'm trying to figure out who this rant is aimed at: is it complaining that people trying to get corporate jobs writing software are writing software for corporations who are using Open Source, and claiming that's some sort of contradiction that needs to be escaped? It's easy to escape. Be poor. Lots of people do it. But if that's not an option for you, writing OSS at a corporate job is no worse that writing proprietary software at a corporate job.

Are you working for scammers? Almost everybody else is too! You should quit, if you're independently wealthy (i.e. invested in scammers), or don't mind being poor. But working on OSS at your scammer job isn't any worse than writing proprietary code at your scammer job. So I don't get it.

Anybody think they've successfully translated this?

edit: also, I think a lot of people need to face that fact that a ton of OSS isn't even useful for anybody but large-scale corporations. It was written by them (or people wanting to be them), for them. Can't see anything wrong with that.

I mean it's not really a paradox. Stallman's vision of open source is one where software serves its users' interests and no one else. This came at a time where people were buying bits-in-a-box to install on their computers or electronic appliances like printers where the vendors leveraged their position to deprive you the ability to do as you please with your own device. Looking back these complaints seem almost inconsequential compared to what we deal with today. The degree to which your computer is no longer yours is significantly more impactful than some ink cartridges or interoperability issues.

Stallman recognized that someone else's computer was going to serve them and open source was, maybe ironically, meant to facilitate that. Open source client to a proprietary service isn't some kind of contradiction, it's respecting your freedom to control your computer same as it always has been.