Open Source

31265 readers

279 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]

111

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]

143 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] 49 points 7 months ago (2 children)

"Forcing donations" is just a fancy way of saying "charging licensing fees".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's clearly a license fee. I don't see how a license fee stands in conflict with FOSS though. FOSS is Free as in freedom, not free as in gratis.

The godfather of all FLOSS licenses himself (GPL) contains explicit terms to allow license fees too.

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

The freedom in Foss is freedom to redistribute (under the same license).

Is the the distributor or the og developer getting the licensing fees? Neither makes any sense to me.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

That's the hard part: Who has claims to how much of the license fees. That's an extremely tough question to answer because it necessitates quantification of code contributions which is far from a solved problem.

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

Nope. I want people to share their profit made from foss, thats it. Licensing fees are applicable to anyone and thats not what I‘m saying.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

If you want a share of their profit, how much is enough? Would it be a pay-what-you-want model, without any restrictions or how'd you define the minimum amount to stop them from donating 1$? A rate based on profits would be pretty much the same as charging a license fee based on a companies worth.

I get why you want to force donations, but at the same time restrictions like that aren't compatible with the FOSS freedoms. Like others said, dual-licensing or a source-available license is probably the closest you'll get. It's not a license I prefer, but it's okay. For example I'd rather have a non-compete clause for two years than something being proprietary for eternity.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

restrictions like that aren’t compatible with the FOSS freedoms

They are.

FOSS freedoms are about what you're allowed to do with the code, not about providing those privieges for free (as in: gratis) to everyone.
It's whether the freedoms are attainable at all; in proprietary software, the freedoms are not attainable, no matter how much you pay for it. Paying for the privilege of being granted those freedoms does not stand in direct conflict with FOSS IMV as long as it is reasonably possible to attain them.

Where it gets complex is transitive freedoms. If I sell you my FOSS program and grant you all the freedoms that includes the freedom to grant those freedoms to others. Such "licensing proxies" are impossible to forbid without limiting essential freedoms of FOSS.

One possible method that sprung to my mind is to only allow granting the rights on modified copies ("modification" meaning original work atop of the licensed work) or even just the modifications themselves. This would technically restrict an essential freedom but I don't consider those to be set in stone either.

It would be extremely difficult to implement this in a manner that actually makes the freedoms attainable and there are tons of complexities in this that I've glossed over but I don't see a licensing model that requires monetary payment in exchange for the freedoms as fundamentally wrong or incompatible with the spirit of F(L)OSS.