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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    519 months ago

    Generally, a free software license has to grant the 4 freedoms to be compatible to the gpl and co.

    Freedom 0 is running the program however you wish, for any purpose. Imagine if that wasnt standard for free software, and having to read every license of every program you are using to find out if you are allowed to run it!

    So your funny license would sadly be incompatible with other free software. Consider dual licensing it instead, with agpl + a propriatary license for businesses that hate free software, and make them pay through the nose for it.

    • Cyclohexane
      link
      fedilink
      -19 months ago

      That’s the FSF definition. Most users and developers of open source do not care at all about that, and certainly do not care about protecting corporate right to use their software without giving back.

      To many of them, open source is about transparency, community driven development, open contribution model, forkability, etc.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        59 months ago

        no, thats also the open source definition point 6: No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor.

        A license that reatricts use would be a “source-availible” license aka corporate bs “work for me for free” licenses.

        Also, with strong copyleft licenses, businesses must give back, namely when expanding the program. I think thats what many programmers like about open-source and free software. And yeah, a free software license is a precondition to bazaar style development.

        • Cyclohexane
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          with strong copyleft licenses, businesses must give back, namely when expanding the program

          A user is required to make the source open only if they create a derivative work of the copyleft licensed work, and only if said work was distributed to users. And if I remember correctly, it is only required to open the source to the users it was distributed to.

          They do not have to do any profit sharing or donation. They are not even required to make the code open source if they merely use this program, or they interface with it. They are not required to do anything if they only use it internally.

        • Cyclohexane
          link
          fedilink
          39 months ago

          no, thats also the open source definition

          Correction: the definition of open source by a specific organization, the OSI.

          I don’t remember voting or appointing the OSI as our legitimate representative. But you know who did? Corporations like Amazon, Google, Bloomberg, and many of them: https://opensource.org/sponsors

          I do not subscribe to a definition from such an organization, just because it has open source in the name.

    • hauiOP
      link
      fedilink
      -49 months ago

      I dont know why my license idea would be funny but thanks for elaborating. I‘ll read up on dual licensing.

      • veroxii
        link
        fedilink
        309 months ago

        They meant funny “different”, not funny “haha”.

        • hauiOP
          link
          fedilink
          -59 months ago

          Oh, ok. Yeah, different is kind of my forte.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            69 months ago

            yes, sorry for the unclear wording.

            We do have funding models for open source and free software. The linux foundation for example takes donations from big players. Its not a forced donation like you suggest, but enough companies see the benefit to fund software they use, so it works. The fsf works a bit like that too, a foundation that, among other things, provides funding for important software. So we do have a way do this, but stuff slips through the cracks, like xz.

            • hauiOP
              link
              fedilink
              -89 months ago

              Thanks for clarifying. Im mean that is something, which I appreciate.

              Still, I think making something like „FOSS tax“ which applies to companies who use software with this license would break both the software market wide open and tenfold the foss dev crowd because people actually get paid if their controbution is good. The quality of foss software would shoot through the roof.