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.

  • Cyclohexane
    -1•6 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]
      5•6 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
        4•6 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
        3•6 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.