CapitalistSusScrofa

This would mean that Microsoft could just fund Powershell and never contribute back to anyone else? All of the big names have a project that is OS, so if they are allowed to just fund their own things, the spirit of the licence wont be honored.

I'll break down my thought process, but maybe it was a mistake of mine to assume it was too much for the post.

Users of the platform determine approval of a project's on GitHub. If they don't want it to be elgible for funding, then they're not required to star or vote for it. The threshold at 1000 does seem low, especially considering that Microsoft has lots of open source repositories. (They contribute lots!) Though, when comparing the top 500 companies in the US, it starts to look better.

I stated that the person paying the royalty would have to spread their support between 10 or more repositories, with no more than 10% to a single one. I also stated in my post, that I like the idea of changing this to 1%, but mentioned consequences of that. [1] It's going to be hard for even Microsoft to have 100 highly approved projects on GitHub.

It may be easier (and more palatable) to just have the 5% donated to a not-for-profit that can then divide out the funds to worthy projects.

I think companies frequently understand what they wish they had. It's not that I don't wish to make it simpler, I would be happy directing a company to a non profit to direct the funds for them. (And my considerations didn't disallow that at all in what I had stated so far) I just think it makes it a desirable license to companies if they're allowed to direct funds to projects they find very important.

Another thing to consider is that projects with 10k+ stars might not necessarily need money. If they are established and stabilised projects they might be operating just fine. Whereas a new project might have more need for funds, but havent yet got enough stars to be funded. Having a not-for-profit organisation managing it could mean that smaller projects could be invested in.

I don't disagree. Companies should have discretion to fund people who need money. Companies should be provided the resources so that they can delegate it out easily to someone who cares about it. (if desired) Companies should be able to promote their own interests. I think these are all good.

I also think it's good that developers who are writing very successful and high quality software are able to do more, like hire more developers than typical. (It just seems like good delegation. There's likely some things they don't need to do themselves)

[1] Limiting contributions to 1% (of the royalty contribution) provides less opportunity for a company to choose to highly fund a small group they find individually important. As an example, they may not want to spend more than 5% (of their total income), and this group could have been one they would have otherwise funded if not for the royalty.

• The total income is the amount they earn. Let's say they earn 1m, the royalty is $50k. (That's the 5%)
• The 1% is a contribution of the $50k. One percent is $500

After writing all of this, one of the things that I really like about it, is that the license is intended to be compatible with more restrictive versions of it. If a developer thinks 1000 stars is too low, no problem, they can bump it to 10k and it changes for the the other deps that use the same license. (If a company uses the bumped license) If a developer thinks 1k is too much, they can drop it, but it'll be moved up if a company uses a more restrictive license later

I think it's good advice that I'm careful to evaluate why GitHub is a good for judging software popularity. Though, I think it's also just because it's the established platform. But, that thought is not a careful consideration. I don't necessarily want to end up creating a competing product to GitHub, but want to use metrics that people are familiar with and trust already.

The issue with considered ideas and including smaller projects is that it makes it too easy for companies to manipulate the system into their favor. Though, I'm open to suggestions on how it could be improved. I do think it's possible to collect a royalty for a distributed group of people successfully. (Though, maybe not in corporate interest for it to be successful)

GitHub does have good integration for payments in the US. There's alternative methods for improving payments, but I do not think it's relevant for finding a license that developers think is good.

Terms are important for determining if developers will use the license.

I don't really care if they use it. I think overtime it could be possible to move a large chunk of software over to a royalty based license. It just has to seem like a good deal to developers, and they'll move.

The royalty must be paid between at least 10 repositories, with no more than 10% to a single repository

The person using the license and paying royalty on the license chooses repos to fund. In the example I was considering, they're limited to funding 1 repository for more than 10% of the total royalty owed. Though, this license would be compatible to a license that someone else requires x%. (As long as the x is less than 10%, as any value of x below 10 is still below 10.)

edit: I think law is just not as straightfoward to follow as programming. The goal is just a highly compatible royalty charging license that raises money to lots of GitHub repositories that have been highly starred.

edit 2: I think you've also convinced me that the clarity and simplicity of it would be better if the royalty was just paid directly to a smart contract that verified stars and approved repositories... but the perception of that is so bad. I do appreciate the comments though, as I think it's helped me understand that attempting to interpret a license might not be an enjoyable experience.

It's just difficult to think about royalty based licenses that pay back to developers. I don't think there will ever be a perfect system, but I do think it's possible to create something that raises more income than what is available now.

I'm still just trying to determine developer interest. It's not really worth talking to a lawyer if there's not interest in it.

No, just flat 5% for all compatible. The income is for project level. Downstream would pay the same 5%. They would pay at their discretion to anyone with 1000+ stars on GitHub. (or some variation of this)

I definitely will need to talk to a lawyer if I proceed. Asking here is more so about trying to determine if other developers would be flat out refuse to use a dependency with this license, or find it interesting, etc.

I'm not actually interested in charging money for myself though. The point of the license is more so to create a license that is compatible with others using it and causes downstream users of it to also have to pay. Like I'm more so imagining a best case scenario where lots of source available software is available for 5% (like use all of it together too) flat on $1m+ in income. (And free for everyone else)

I don't expect legitimate companies earning over $1m/year to just flat out violate the license. I do think they might try to dodge amounts owed with accounting, but Epic seems to find this business model viable with Unreal Engine. I'm also not going to signficantly care if it's violated, the fact that they're legally obligated to pay seems better than just giving it to them for free with a more permissive license.