this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2024

111 points (79.7% liked)

Open Source

31118 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] 34 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

This is not FOSS then. FOSS puts no restrictions on downstream use of your software other than that you acknowledge and credit the original authors.. This is "Open Source" with strings attached. It's no different than being forced to sign an NDA to see your code.

You either make it free for everybody, or then it isn't free software.

[+] [email protected] -28 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Wrong. Free in FOSS means freely distributable, not free of cost. My idea of cost is just different than "pay for download".

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

You should not be a mod here.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think you may be mistaken.

By definition, if the user of the software is not free to do as they wish with the software, the software is not free/libre. It could fit the definition of open source, but it is not free/libre if you are restricting what the user can do with your source code.

And starting comments with "Wrong." Is just rude.

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

@gallopingsnail @haui_lemmy

> It could fit the definition of open source

It doesn't https://opensource.org/osd

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

My bad, thanks for the source!

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Here's Stallman's/FSF's view on requiring ~~loyalties (lol)~~ royalties (read the whole section, it's explicitly stated at the end), and here's similar requirement in OSI's Open source definition.

You are free to use whatever license you wish, but don't call it FOSS/Open source if you don't agree with their definitions.

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

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.

So, if I understand this correctly, open source means free beer, just not if you sell the end product.

its all a scam for free work for corpos then. Very disappointing.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So, if I understand this correctly, open source means free beer, just not if you sell the end product.

Yes, once you give the beer to someone, you can't require any further payments no matter what they do with it. Free software philosophy says users are free to use the software however they wish and for whatever purpose they wish without any barriers (like having to pay for commercial use).

its all a scam for free work for corpos then. Very disappointing.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and it's becoming a not-so-rare sentiment lately (or at least I've started noticing it more), but I don't agree. Look at (A)GPL and how many companies are doing their best to avoid such code - like when Google made their own C library for Android and even stated that its main goal was to avoid copyleft licenses. I've also seen plenty of people say that GPL code is pretty much useless for their work due to their company's policies forbidding its use.

I also think that revenue-based loyalties screw over small companies the most - sure, you get the donations from the massive companies that can work with 1% of their revenue gone while also keeping it free for non-commercial users, but in my view you also help those same massive corporations by making the software less viable for their smaller competitors who don't have the economies of scale on their side, and for whom that 1% might legitimately break the bank.

And to be clear, I don't mean any of my arguments as some kind of "gotcha! Look, I'm right and you're wrong", I just thought I might share my reasoning for why I don't think your statement is fair.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

Thats a very reasonable answer, in brutal contrast to all the childish trolls in this community that flooded my inbox and are blocked now.

I‘ll probably just leave it at that. Its probably agpl forever for me since I‘m not giving my work to anyone who thinks they can just fuck over the little man. If we cant work out a foss version that is fair to devs then it is copyleft.

Still very disappointing. Thank you for providing the explanation though. I appreciate it.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

It does mean free of cost if the person downstream from you decides to not charge for it after getting it from you and forking it. That's why you're not finding a FOSS license that allows this. Because again, that's not FOSS.