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] -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.