Open Source

30349 readers

2373 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 5 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] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (4 children)

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).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Are you free to distribute something if someone charges you a fee to do that distributing?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

@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.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago

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.