Free and open source software (FOSS) began as an effort to create an option to proprietary software. For years, it was generally viewed in that way on both sides, with FOSS developers mistrusting proprietary software, and corporations equally dismissive of FOSS. However, over the years, the distinction has blurred. Today, FOSS has become more successful than its pioneers had ever imagined, yet that success may have come at too large a price. Although a minority still dream of a completely free alternative, increasingly the emphasis in FOSS seems to be on accepting coexistence with proprietary software. In fact, a few question if existing FOSS licenses have outlived their usefulness and if an alternative is needed.

While this perception is not widespread, consider these data points:

• Until recently, Debian organized its repositories on the assumption that users wanted a free system. In October 2022, in a general resolution, the project voted to include a non-free firmware repository in the standard installation. The repository contains the hardware drivers necessary for maximum hardware performance.
• Nobara is a distribution based on Fedora, but with proprietary drivers and gaming applications that Fedora does not carry. Although only a couple of years old, it is solidly in 13th place on DistroWatch's Page Hit Ranking.
• In early 2024, the SCM License was released by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). The license is a modified version of the GNU General Public License (GPL) with an exception clause. The exception is that “if you link the SCM library with other files to produce an executable, this does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License. Your use of that executable is in no way restricted on account of linking the SCM library code into it.” In other words, the license allows a link to proprietary software that would otherwise be impossible.
• In June 2023, access to the source code of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) was restricted to individual developers and 16 servers. Instead, access to the code would be via CentOS Stream, the development version of RHEL. The move is widely condemned as a violation of the spirit and purpose of open source and has sent commercial rivals scrambling to deal with the policy.

[...]