This article is pure junk, and reads like a long sequence of self-contradictions.
The author starts by claiming that the term "open source" has become meaningless, but then proceeds in providing a precise definition as defined by the Open Source Initiative. Then he proceeds to assert that licenses "are not a useful way to define modern open source anymore" (oh really?) to proceeds to suggest that his personal definition of open source involves the use of a service that forces the users to define a precise license for each project.
In the process, the author claims that "early open source was about the idea that code is ownerless", when the very basis of what open source software is, and always has been, is founded on the fact that each code contribution does have an owner who licenses his contribution under a very specific open source license which guarantees a series of rights to access and redistribute the source code.
In short, this blog entry is plain bullshit and a complete waste of time.
The author starts by claiming that the term "open source" has become meaningless, but then proceeds in providing a precise definition as defined by the Open Source Initiative. Then he proceeds to assert that licenses "are not a useful way to define modern open source anymore" (oh really?) to proceeds to suggest that his personal definition of open source involves the use of a service that forces the users to define a precise license for each project.
In the process, the author claims that "early open source was about the idea that code is ownerless", when the very basis of what open source software is, and always has been, is founded on the fact that each code contribution does have an owner who licenses his contribution under a very specific open source license which guarantees a series of rights to access and redistribute the source code.
In short, this blog entry is plain bullshit and a complete waste of time.