• Lena@gregtech.eu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    Yeah open source monetization sucks in the corporate world. Maybe there could be a license that goes something along the lines of “you may use this for free as long as your company’s years revenue isn’t over X €”

    • Axolotl@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      What about something like “1 gold bar price*7.4”? It would keep up with inflation way more. Currently 1kg of gold has a value around 135.992€ btw

      [I am not an economist, i am just a random dude who thought it was a good idea due to gold value having always the same value or smth like that]

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Epic does that but it’s under a contract (user agreement) not the license and OSS can’t afford the legal fees that they can.

      The other issue is putting the license under a shell company.

    • xvapx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      I mean, the obvious solution is to use a strong copyleft license like AGPL and sell private licenses for closed-source projects.

    • RmDebArc_5@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Tying it to revenue wouldn’t work that well due to inflation. Metas AI has a license that basically says that, but with a user number. Both ideas however would mean that the project isn’t open source anymore

        • RmDebArc_5@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          Quote from the Open Source Initiative definition of Open Source:

          The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

          Source

          • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 days ago

            Not everyone agrees:

            https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html

            In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions.

            First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses. For example, Open Watcom is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately. Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.

            • RmDebArc_5@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              14 days ago

              I’m not sure the GNU play project or FSF are the best source for a definition on open source, as they don’t “agree” with open source. Same reason a capitalist might have a very dubious definition of communism, at least comparing it to how actual communists might use the word

              • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                14 days ago

                GPL only guarantees the source for customers.

                Companies just post it because it’s easier than mailing it out on request.

      • Lena@gregtech.eu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        True, I don’t think there’s really a good solution to this (other than getting rid of capitalism)

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      I think a better enforcable solution would be taxing the shit out of these corporations, then give state grants to open source projects. I actually looked into licenses that would allow me to force corpos to donate, but they’re unenforcable.

      • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Ultimately, the solution to many problems caused by corporations abusing their positions is through taxation