Open Source

31359 readers

78 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]

110

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

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

131 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] -16 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, I'm thinking of a more easy to understand thing. "Get in touch" is too much of a barrier imo. "Agpl but you need to pay 1% of your revenue to FOSS software"

[–] [email protected] 30 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They would have to get in touch to figure out how to pay 1% either way, no?

[+] [email protected] -17 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No, because my idea was that they have to pay 1% to all foss projects (total, not individual) they use and if the projects want donations, they have to post it on their repos. if its not on the repo, no donation is required.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago (1 children)

1% is an exorbitant amount of money, and more than most businesses would be able to donate via credit card, so they would still have to reach out to repository owners for banking info

[+] [email protected] -17 points 8 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] 22 points 8 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] -17 points 8 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] 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

From my experience, companies would rather just pay for a commercial license. Anything abnormal gets trashed and banned in my company.

I think it's more easy to understand "pay exactly this amount to use commercially" than the legal and accounting teams trying to work out how much to pay when you say 1% of their revenue to FOSS software. You can always donate the profits anyway

[–] jacksilver 2 points 8 months ago

App stores and game engines are examples where you are paying a percentage of revenue. Not that it makes this scenario make any more sense, but there are models out there that operate this way. However, in both you are working in pretty locked down environments.

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

Yeah, I get that. Its a tough topic, especially with many folks not trying to understand the point I was trying to make and trying to shut me down instead.

Dual license is probably the way to go then. Have a nice day and thanks for elaborating.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Just a remark about "can donate profit anyway" which I understand for corporations doesnt apply to public and semi-public services (ofcourse).

Which often happens to be a target group that is well aware of public values etc and the notion of community-culture among each other. Often other libraries or other schools for example treat each other as collegues etc.

BUT those type of organisations arnt allowed to donate (Giving away taxmoney) AND often cant allocate developer time (because there arent any within those organizations).

Here (NL in EU) we depend on the same FOSS as everyone else, but cant donate. We do must look for other ways to contribute tho.