Post-open-source software (POSS) is a term used in discussions of source code published without an explicit software license. The expression gained attention in 2012 after analyst James Governor described some younger developers as treating licensing and governance as unimportant when committing code to GitHub. Richard Fontana later used POSS more narrowly for "seemingly-open-source projects for which explicit licensing appears to be absent".
In September 2012, James Governor, co-founder of the analyst firm RedMonk, used the acronym "POSS" in a tweet about younger developers disregarding licensing and governance when committing code to GitHub. Fontana subsequently wrote that he did not believe POSS existed in precisely the sense Governor appeared to intend, although he adopted a narrower definition for convenience. Luis Villa proposed that some publication without a license could be interpreted as an implicit critique of the assumption that sharing requires explicit permission. He nevertheless wrote that confusion, the time required to select a license, and developers being busy or inattentive were probably the primary explanations for the practice.
younger devs today are about POSS – Post open source software. f*** the license and governance, just commit to github.
use the term "POSS" ... to mean seemingly-open-source projects for which explicit licensing appears to be absent
I do not believe that there is such a thing as "POSS" in the sense Governor apparently meant. However, for convenience, in this article I will use the term "POSS" ... to mean seemingly-open-source projects for which explicit licensing appears to be absent.
I think that, for some people, the pushback against licenses often reflects a belief that "no copyright should mean no permission needed." ... publishing without a license is in some way a political statement—"not every use should need permission."
Licensing is confusing/time-consuming and people are lazy/busy. While I'm sure these are the primary reasons, I think that, for some people, the pushback against licenses often reflects a belief that "no copyright should mean no permission needed."