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.
I still dont see how this breaks any of these. They get the source code and they get to sell it (or whatever), they can change it however they see fit. They still have to provide fair upstream financial kickback imo.
Then it’s not FOSS. I don’t see how it’s very different from Unity (for example) licensing model. So maybe a license like that can have a place, but not in the FOSS space and it will be definitely not compatible with any gpl.
Unity is insane, asking for money per download, leading to completely lopsided situations where you get ruined if you have too many users for free.
And thanks for your opinion. My opinion is that this is what foss needs and its very much foss. The foss principles I read clearly state free as in freedom, not free beer. Putting in an elaborate payment scheme that benefits small companies and individuals and makes large companies pay their share to help counter the thankless grind of foss development is totally in line with the principles imo.
Your opinion is at odds with the rest of the FOSS community though, and always will be. You can license your software however you feel fit for your project, but don’t expect to get any traction from the Libre community when you do.
“Free as in Freedom” means a lot to people. Restrict that freedom and you’re out.
I see you quoting “Free as in Freedom” but you seem to imply that FOSS also means “Free as in gratis”. That is not true. FOSS does not grant you the freedom of receiving everything for free (gratis).
Honestly, this community is full of childish trolls who dogpile on someone just to be right. There were like 5 people who actually cared and wanted to discuss and educate the rest was condescending children without any real world experience in life.
FOSS doesn’t mean that you get the software for free, but it does mean that once you have it, it’s yours to do with however you want. No?
To change the deal of that license under a specific condition (profit made) after that software is effectively the user’s (after they got the software paid or free) would conflict with how FOSS works.
The software is free to be used in any way whatsoever once the user has it, that’s what free means. Altering the deal under a specific condition after that is not free. You may as well dual license the software instead.
Are you free to distribute something if someone charges you a fee to do that distributing?
Yes. You are free to distribute it in any way you wish. Some methods, like printing books, have a raw material cost. You can choose to pay someone to distribute via that method, or if you really want to, you can do the printing yourself at no cost but your own time and effort.
If it’s a service, sure, but if you charge money for access to the software itself, that is non-free.
If Ubuntu charged money per seat for running a prod server I’d call foul. But I have no problem with Ubuntu Pro.
@BreakDecks FOSS allows you to charge money per seat. But FOSS compels you to pass the freedoms on to others, so essentially, they will pay, then they will get the software with the license which gives them the freedoms, then they can decide to share it further without any payment. It’s no longer up to you. That’s what freedom means.
The level of misunderstanding of OSS licenses is astounding, and dangerous.