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.

  • The Hobbyist
    link
    fedilink
    923 months ago

    You can put up a non commercial license and write that if this is for a commercial application they can get in touch with you and you can discuss together a new license for their use case.

    • hauiOP
      link
      fedilink
      -143 months ago

      Yeah, I’m thinking of a more easy to understand thing. “Get in touch” is too much of a barrier imo. “Agpl but you need to pay 1% of your revenue to FOSS software”

      • bjorney
        link
        fedilink
        323 months ago

        They would have to get in touch to figure out how to pay 1% either way, no?

        • hauiOP
          link
          fedilink
          -163 months ago

          No, because my idea was that they have to pay 1% to all foss projects (total, not individual) they use and if the projects want donations, they have to post it on their repos. if its not on the repo, no donation is required.

          • bjorney
            link
            fedilink
            213 months ago

            1% is an exorbitant amount of money, and more than most businesses would be able to donate via credit card, so they would still have to reach out to repository owners for banking info

            • hauiOP
              link
              fedilink
              -173 months ago

              Actually, we are currently working on something like a payment union for FOSS developers. That would make this significantly easier. And also, I dont care if google has to do it, I just dont want everyone to have to contact me for 1.50 $/€.

              • bjorney
                link
                fedilink
                243 months ago

                You are probably better off setting up a non-profit and running traditional license fees through it into your payment union then. I can’t emphasize how much of a non-starter 1% of revenues is for any business (it’s my company’s entire IT budget, including salary) - you are basically just saying “personal use only” with more words.

                • hauiOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -163 months ago

                  Actually, I‘m just excluding companies like yours because they are making way too much revenue on the basis of FOSS without giving back. We would have millions of FOSS developers if this were the case and we would solve dozens of current problems.

                  For example every employed sw dev with a specific skill set would then be able to go self employed immediately since they can provide insane foss code, stuff that we currently dont have and every company in the world can use it, just making sure they pay FOSS tax, so to speak.

                  It would completely break the locked down proprietary software model and break walled gardens wide open.

                  • bjorney
                    link
                    fedilink
                    21
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    Actually, I‘m just excluding companies like yours because they are making way too much revenue on the basis of FOSS without giving back

                    You don’t know anything about my company? You don’t know what proportion of FOSS vs proprietary software we use, nor how much we give back lol.

                    It would completely break the locked down proprietary software model and break walled gardens wide open.

                    This is very pie in the sky. Your license idea only penalizes small to medium sized businesses. Alphabet’s 1% would just go to Chromium/AOSP, and Meta’s 1% would just go to React/Torch

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        43 months ago

        From my experience, companies would rather just pay for a commercial license. Anything abnormal gets trashed and banned in my company.

        I think it’s more easy to understand “pay exactly this amount to use commercially” than the legal and accounting teams trying to work out how much to pay when you say 1% of their revenue to FOSS software. You can always donate the profits anyway

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          23 months ago

          App stores and game engines are examples where you are paying a percentage of revenue. Not that it makes this scenario make any more sense, but there are models out there that operate this way. However, in both you are working in pretty locked down environments.

        • Joël de Bruijn
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Just a remark about “can donate profit anyway” which I understand for corporations doesnt apply to public and semi-public services (ofcourse).

          Which often happens to be a target group that is well aware of public values etc and the notion of community-culture among each other. Often other libraries or other schools for example treat each other as collegues etc.

          BUT those type of organisations arnt allowed to donate (Giving away taxmoney) AND often cant allocate developer time (because there arent any within those organizations).

          Here (NL in EU) we depend on the same FOSS as everyone else, but cant donate. We do must look for other ways to contribute tho.

        • hauiOP
          link
          fedilink
          03 months ago

          Yeah, I get that. Its a tough topic, especially with many folks not trying to understand the point I was trying to make and trying to shut me down instead.

          Dual license is probably the way to go then. Have a nice day and thanks for elaborating.