Define Open App Ecosystem

I should clarify a bit: when I describe my ideal architecture, which does not have usernames and passwords, I also see a big need for a single-signon person app like what Marc is working on here: https://wekan.indie.host/b/G4LCutYkTJLhSCAtn/open-app-ecosystem/Tkw9Sk8egsE7mHTE9 (hope I got the right link...)

We know lots of communities who are using a set of apps that have usernames and passwords, as well as our own existing software. So I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good...

I'm looking at https://beakerbrowser.com/ via tip from @jonrichter
https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/172#issuecomment-315547844

[edit] this from the SSB community, which could fix one of the main limitations of SSB: it has not been on and of the Web.

@lynnfoster I think an ecosystem based on the individual is a good idea.

In the best case :
* You create your account on the persona/avatar app
* You are now part of the ecosystem : you can easily be part of actions, use shared ressources according to your location and the objectives you try to fulfill.
* You can use a suite of apps very user friendly and decentralized

Are we on the same page ? :D

Are we on the same page ?

I think so.

(6) to use without charge for non-commercial purposes.

I would say : (6) to use without charge for commercial and non commercial purposes.

This one is interesting. I'm OK with the original, without charge for non-commercial purposes. There are "commercial" purposes that I think are part of the next economy (coops, etc.), if you define the term loosely. But as economic entities, they can be supporting the OAE infrastructure development on which they rely to conduct their economic activities.

Maybe at some point, we could clarify what "commercial" means, so it isn't like a bad word.

@lynnfoster @gregorycassel For the commercial purpose, my model here is the MIT license which is really permissive. But maybe you don't like it ;)

I like MIT license, or any other open source license really. But that doesn't address the question of charging for commercial use as far as I know - my understanding is that would apply to using hosted software, not to whether there are different rules around open source. Anyone, feel free to correct me, maybe I am missing it.

Whether or not a team charges commercial users-- or anyone else-- for a software hosting and user service system needn't be directly related to the way(s) in which they license source code.

I'm sure of course that you realize that, @lynnfoster , but it seems to be a useful point for context here.

I think that P2P Foundation, including Michel Bauwens, are putting lots of thought into peer production licenses with the hope of restricting commercial use of software code and other media resources. Frankly, I think that that's not a promising approach for developing globally useful media resources. It could create lots of unnecessary and inefficient "red tape" complexity. However, perhaps such restrictive licenses could be useful for media resources which only hold (legitimate, non-hostile) value to specific communities. For example, maybe such restrictive licenses could be helpful for some media developed through private, socially sensitive community-specific research. I don't know; I haven't given it much thought.

Anyway, I personally support very permissive licenses for media which is shared for general public use-- and, I also support teams charging anyone anything they think that they need to charge for software hosting and user service. Bearing in mind, though, that most of us are quite used now to accessing tons of hosted software platforms without any direct financial cost. We expect stuff to be "free", even though Google & facebook etcetera will (1) use paid commercial advertising and (2) will mine our data to engineer corporate profit. So, I think it's really hard to sustainably require an admission fee for software hosting and user service. Rather, I generally suggest pay what you want models attached to open-book accounting and comprehensive long-term fundraising and budgeting strategies.

I have a friend who wrote wrote the Pylons framework (and book) that now powers reddit.com to 8 billion page views / month http://pylonsbook.com

He made that code open source but now refuses to work on open source projects as he see's the "leaching" (development) of open source code into the proprietary world as "ripping off people that develop open source".

if his code had been protected by the PPL, which @gregorycassel mentions, he would have made a lot of money which he could now be living on, so he could develop more useful code for the OAE and similar... or, Reddit would have had to develop something of their own...

I discussed this with Nathan Schneider in my article and it raises a few interesting thoughts... mainly that co-ops CAN re-use PPL code for commercial purposes but "late capitalist" business can't. To me that is a good solution, but I understand why others may disagree.

Here's an extract of our discussion:

NS: Part of what excites me about the platform co-op movement is the way in which it offers a kind of corrective to open-source so far. For one thing, people are developing licenses like the Peer Production License that create commons that only fellow co-ops can commercialize; if Linux were licensed that way, for instance, Google couldn’t use it to create the Android surveillance system.

OSB: The Peer Production License is a very interesting development which we at Open hope to see utilised more, to encourage the proliferation of open source development whilst avoiding its exploitation by commercial businesses. I know coders who have been put off releasing their code as open source after seeing their previous contributions subsumed by businesses which have been grown and sold for enormous profits, so the PPL seems like a great concept. What do you think are the biggest obstacles to it becoming widely adopted?

NS: Part of what helps good ideas spread in the online economy is a successful use case. Among the projects I’m aware of that have employed the PPL, I’m not sure any have actually been commercially (or otherwise) successful because of the PPL. If this license is going to take wings, it’ll be because it meets a need, and creates possibilities, where other licenses fall short. And, until the tech co-op scene is much more robust, the PPL’s main benefit will be a liability; precisely what enables lots of open-source projects to work is that their contributors include corporations that intend to derive commercial benefit from the tools they’re contributing to.

mainly that co-ops CAN re-use PPL code for commercial purposes but "late capitalist" business can't. To me that is a good solution, but I understand why others may disagree.

Thanks @olisb , I don't object to the various nuances of open source that restrict people making a lot of personal money off us. But I still don't think the OAE can include software that is not open to fork for communities (including but not limited to co-ops) that are about creating a new economic and social system. However we do that is fine.

One way that seemed promising in that whole huge discussion in CTA is to talk about ends, not means.

if his code had been protected by the PPL, which @gregorycassel mentions, he would have made a lot of money which he could now be living on, so he could develop more useful code for the OAE and similar...

We can easily identify such legitimate benefits (for media creators) of restrictive media licensing. However, I think it's also easy to quickly identify costs and risks which such licensing creates for media users. (Plus it creates predictable costs in systemic oversight and enforcement-- especially for highly complex, interrelated media resources.)

Nonetheless: if anyone can create, use and enforce peer production licenses in ways which reliably support sustainable culture, I'll be quite interested in the details. Meanwhile, I'll be working to develop sustainable media production processes for the public domain, including open-book accounting and open-ended crowdfunding.