this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2024

112 points (80.1% liked)

Open Source

31744 readers

128 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 9 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] 30 points 9 months ago (2 children)

i dont want you to make money off of my invention without giving back

Why do you think that you're interested in writing FOSS software? Nothing you've posted here supports that claim. You do, however, speak like a textbook entrepreneur who wants to be paid for their innovation.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Their concern is obviously solving the dire problem of FOSS maintainers not getting compensated for their work, not getting rich themselves.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

Obviously. With this much “I/me/my” in their rhetoric, it’s clear that they’re thinking about everyone else.

[+] [email protected] -11 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I have built stuff to help people all my life and have gotten fuck all for it. Its very easy to understand why I sound like this. Because I dont like people freeloading on others. Its selfish and disgusting.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If you don’t like people accepting what you freely offer, then don’t offer it. If you want to be paid, sell your work. It’s extraordinarily simple.

[+] [email protected] -10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I dont like your condescending tone mate. I can have my opinion without having this and that ascribed to my personality every step of the way. Stop projecting.

I‘m ending this now. Good bye.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Im an outsider to this community but I am confused by this. I actually do understand wanting to earn from your work but I wouldn't then offer free stuff expecting money in return.

I am not in IT but with my skillset I get paid from work and then I do charity work separately, I dont think it would make sense for me to find issue with the lack of return on my charitable time.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 9 months ago

I can relate. I‘m not asking to get paid by anyone. I‘m expecting to get paid by people who earn money with my work.

But I have found a satisfying solution. I‘ll just license my work under agpl and nobody can use it for proprietary stuff.

I was trying to help but most folks were unable to be constructive and see that. Instead they did everything to shut me down so I blocked them. Everybody won.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

On the contrary, friend, I’m simply trying to help you see that you’re reinventing the wheel. Literally everything that you’ve said you want in a software license already exists. Bill Gates already did it. It’s called proprietary software. Develop it and license it to whoever wants to use it.

It actually sounds like you want to open a software development studio or a consortium of independent contractors. It’s a great idea. Run with it.

[–] SheeEttin 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If you don't want to give it away for free, then just don't make it FOSS. It's that simple. People use free-libre licenses because they want to use that license model. If you don't want to, then don't.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Think of all the other free software you've used in your life. Were you selfishly freeloading?

[+] [email protected] -6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not ever. I started donating when I could financially and understood why it is important.

The discussion we had was that people who can, who profit from this software, give back their fair share.

People can disagree with my idea all they want but profit seekers freeloading is a huge flaw in foss.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The whole point is that their fair share is sharing code modifications and making them available to be merged upstream.

Do you think Redhat and the many other companies writing open source tools and drivers should be paying some of their revenue even though they've contributed a shit ton of code upstream?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago

No. To the contrary. I think companies controbutions to foss should be weighed against it but I also think that using others work should come with an obligation to contribute an equal value than you get if you are profitseeking.

The reason is that a lot of companies contribute nothing and say they would pay if they had to but cant donate because its optional and their policy is to spare respurces as much as they can.