Until now, the world of software licensing has been divided into two models: proprietary and open source. That has served us well… or has served us anyway... for decades. But we’re going to show you that the world needs something better – a third way if you will.
But first, to quote a big software-driven company, this is not your usual yada yada.
This is genuinely new.
It’s about governance.
The proprietary ecosystems of Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, Oracle and others are governed. In each case, an identifiable entity, a company, takes responsibility for keeping the system useful and secure. That’s good.
Open source software also provides its own kind of goodness. Anyone can put open source software to use, avoiding market manipulation, proprietary barriers, license fees, file format gotchas, hidden privacy erosion techniques, and the rest of the not so good stuff that infests proprietary technology.
Proprietary software might have been OK when your phone was wired into the wall and your “micro” computer was an unconnected glorified typewriter. But now that we all live a large portion of our lives in the digital world, that private, closed governance has us living down on the plantations1 of the owners of those proprietary platforms.
So how do we get the benefits of both governed systems and open source systems at the same time?
The answer is:
"Occupancy Licensed Software"
Occupancy Licensed Software is open source software. The license has nothing to do with the availability of the source code. Any open source license such as GPL, MIT, etc. may apply.
Rather, it has to do with the use of the code.
It’s like the difference between construction materials used in an unoccupied building and the construction materials in a legally habitable building. The materials are the same; it’s the occupancy permit that makes the difference.
Before we illustrate by taking closer look at that word “governance,” we need to deal with that old bugaboo, centralization. Specifically we’ll quote the noted advocate of decentralization, Lawrence Lundy-Bryan, who proclaims
“There is no such thing as decentralized governance.”
If you think about it, isn’t that self-evident? The things we use in our daily lives, including software, may work OK as disconnected widgets, but if governance is a do-your-own-thing matter, well, that’s simply not governance. As John Donne reminds us, “No [one] is an island.” The whole point of an identity system is to allow us to represent ourselves in society, which consists of… you know… other people. After all, everyone wants privacy for themselves, and everyone wants accountability from others they encounter online. We are all relying parties.
In the physical world, municipalities are effectively governed by activists – residents who get involved by showing up for hearings and paying attention to what goes on in city hall. The governance of cities is much more participatory than the governance of nations, with their many layers of representation and bureaucracy obfuscating the realities of government from the governed. It’s nations, not cities, that give centralized government its bad rap.
Now let’s see how that notion applies to the governance of our digital world rather than our physical world.
Governance of proprietary digital ecosystems is by people who by law are accountable only to the stockholders who own the company. And, amazingly, in the United States and many other countries, their performance is judged only by the performance of their stock in the stock market. If they manage to make money by burglarizing your “information home,” stealing your personal information and putting it on their balance sheet as a money making asset, then by the standards of Wall Street, that’s good.
By the standards of you and me, isn’that an atrocity?
Sources of proprietary technology are governed by a management team and a board of directors. You’re not invited to participate in that governance unless you own a substantial portion of the company’s voting stock. For an illustration see https://silibandia.com.
We started by noting the benefit that proprietary ecosystems bring to the users of their software, in that an identifiable entity takes responsibility for keeping the system useful and secure.
Like proprietary software, Occupancy Licensed Software is digitally signed. Anyone can check the signature to ensure that the code hasn’t been altered since it was published by its authors.
But with proprietary software that signature is typically made using the private key of a department in the company that published it. Would any one person in that department want to sign it individually, attesting that there’s nothing in the code that doesn’t serve the interests of its user? Is that why no one individual takes responsibility for the code’s digital signature? We’ll leave that for you to judge.
Professional licensing methods have served people well in the physical world for centuries in such professions as medicine, structural engineering, law and architecture.
You may wonder: why do those professionals readily accept the responsibilities and liabilities associated with their professions?
Here’s the short answer: they get paid very well.
A physical building cannot be occupied unless and until its architect, structural engineer and other licensed professionals attest that it is habitable by signing their good names on the application for an occupancy permit.
“Habitable” means, among other things, that the architect has been paid for her services.
Wouldn’t our digital world be a lot safer and more reliable if facilities made from software and servers and client devices benefited from the same personal acceptance of responsibility?
And wouldn’t the lives of those licensed professionals be improved with seven figure incomes?
The City of Osmio’s Professional Licensing Department is founded on the belief that professional licensing methods are just as needed in the digital world.
Learn about how occupancy technology keeps open source open, while at the same time bringing that accountability element to the open source world.
If you have experience in the practice or management of software development, consider becoming part of the Occupancy Technology Commission at the City of Osmio.
More about governance at https://governance.osmio.ch
Keep informed about Occupancy Licensed Software by joining our community:
1 If you feel that the use of the word “plantation” as a metaphor is offensive, then please understand that we don’t intend it as a metaphor at all. The issue here is about ownership of people. Silibandia (Silicon Valley + the broadband and media industries) intends to own us. You know the word for that, right?