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 €”
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
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.
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.
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
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 €”
Called “Fair use” or “ethical software” but people hate it and lawyers tell you it is not enforceable for… some reason
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
Open source doesn’t mean free for everyone for every purpose
Quote from the Open Source Initiative definition of Open Source:
Source
Not everyone agrees:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
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
GPL only guarantees the source for customers.
Companies just post it because it’s easier than mailing it out on request.
True, I don’t think there’s really a good solution to this (other than getting rid of capitalism)
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.
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]
Gold markets are too volatile.