Open Source

31372 readers

190 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

112

Is there a License that requires the user to donate if they make revenue? (lemmy.giftedmc.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

142 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I tried a couple license finders and I even looked into the OSI database but I could not find a license that works pretty much like agpl but requiring payment (combined 1% of revenue per month, spread evenly over all FOSS software, if applicable) if one of these is true:

the downstream user makes revenue (as in "is a company" or gets donations)
the downstream distributor is connected to a commercial user (e.g. to exclude google from making a non profit to circumvent this license)

I ask this because of the backdoor in xz and the obviously rotten situation in billion dollar companies not kicking their fair share back to the people providing this stuff.

So, if something similar exists, feel free to let me know.

Thanks for reading and have a good one.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] [email protected] -17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Actually, we are currently working on something like a payment union for FOSS developers. That would make this significantly easier. And also, I dont care if google has to do it, I just dont want everyone to have to contact me for 1.50 $/€.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You are probably better off setting up a non-profit and running traditional license fees through it into your payment union then. I can't emphasize how much of a non-starter 1% of revenues is for any business (it's my company's entire IT budget, including salary) - you are basically just saying "personal use only" with more words.

[+] [email protected] -16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Actually, I‘m just excluding companies like yours because they are making way too much revenue on the basis of FOSS without giving back. We would have millions of FOSS developers if this were the case and we would solve dozens of current problems.

For example every employed sw dev with a specific skill set would then be able to go self employed immediately since they can provide insane foss code, stuff that we currently dont have and every company in the world can use it, just making sure they pay FOSS tax, so to speak.

It would completely break the locked down proprietary software model and break walled gardens wide open.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Actually, I‘m just excluding companies like yours because they are making way too much revenue on the basis of FOSS without giving back

You don't know anything about my company? You don't know what proportion of FOSS vs proprietary software we use, nor how much we give back lol.

It would completely break the locked down proprietary software model and break walled gardens wide open.

This is very pie in the sky. Your license idea only penalizes small to medium sized businesses. Alphabet's 1% would just go to Chromium/AOSP, and Meta's 1% would just go to React/Torch