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

[–] toothbrush@lemmy.blahaj.zone 44 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Generally, a free software license has to grant the 4 freedoms to be compatible to the gpl and co.

Freedom 0 is running the program however you wish, for any purpose. Imagine if that wasnt standard for free software, and having to read every license of every program you are using to find out if you are allowed to run it!

So your funny license would sadly be incompatible with other free software. Consider dual licensing it instead, with agpl + a propriatary license for businesses that hate free software, and make them pay through the nose for it.

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I dont know why my license idea would be funny but thanks for elaborating. I‘ll read up on dual licensing.

[–] veroxii@aussie.zone 25 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They meant funny "different", not funny "haha".

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Oh, ok. Yeah, different is kind of my forte.

[–] toothbrush@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

yes, sorry for the unclear wording.

We do have funding models for open source and free software. The linux foundation for example takes donations from big players. Its not a forced donation like you suggest, but enough companies see the benefit to fund software they use, so it works. The fsf works a bit like that too, a foundation that, among other things, provides funding for important software. So we do have a way do this, but stuff slips through the cracks, like xz.

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 2 points 7 months ago

Thanks for clarifying. Im mean that is something, which I appreciate.

Still, I think making something like „FOSS tax“ which applies to companies who use software with this license would break both the software market wide open and tenfold the foss dev crowd because people actually get paid if their controbution is good. The quality of foss software would shoot through the roof.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's the FSF definition. Most users and developers of open source do not care at all about that, and certainly do not care about protecting corporate right to use their software without giving back.

To many of them, open source is about transparency, community driven development, open contribution model, forkability, etc.

[–] toothbrush@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

no, thats also the open source definition point 6: No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor.

A license that reatricts use would be a "source-availible" license aka corporate bs "work for me for free" licenses.

Also, with strong copyleft licenses, businesses must give back, namely when expanding the program. I think thats what many programmers like about open-source and free software. And yeah, a free software license is a precondition to bazaar style development.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

with strong copyleft licenses, businesses must give back, namely when expanding the program

A user is required to make the source open only if they create a derivative work of the copyleft licensed work, and only if said work was distributed to users. And if I remember correctly, it is only required to open the source to the users it was distributed to.

They do not have to do any profit sharing or donation. They are not even required to make the code open source if they merely use this program, or they interface with it. They are not required to do anything if they only use it internally.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

no, thats also the open source definition

Correction: the definition of open source by a specific organization, the OSI.

I don't remember voting or appointing the OSI as our legitimate representative. But you know who did? Corporations like Amazon, Google, Bloomberg, and many of them: https://opensource.org/sponsors

I do not subscribe to a definition from such an organization, just because it has open source in the name.

[–] SheeEttin@programming.dev 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The people who coined the term "open source" are the same people who founded OSI. If you don't like their term, don't use it.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago

I have two arguments: first, it's not true that the OSI coined the term. But more importantly, it isn't even important if it was true. What matters is the context in which the open source movement emerged, and how people who use the term think of it.

The open source / free software movement was born in universities who primarily wanted to erase the barriers on collaboration between them, and wanted to follow an open model. They grew frustrated of the proprietary and opaque model of software written by major corporations. They could not use it. So they decided to write their own free software and combine their efforts to not rely on corporate or proprietary software.

Back then, corporations were uninterested in open source. In fact they were hostile to it and wanted it to die. The issue that we deal with today of corporations leeching on open source did not exist, so the fact that the movement did not specifically fight this does not mean they're okay with it. The corporate hostility took a different form and that's what they combatted.

On OSI coining the term, the OSI themselves claim it was coined by Christine Peterson. They do not claim that they founded the term, nor that the founder had an affiliation with them: https://opensource.org/history