There has been a lot of talk about companies and individuals adopting licenses that aren’t OSI opensource to protect themselves from mega-corp leechers. Developers have also been condemned who put donation notices in the command-line or during package installation. Projects with opensource cores and paid extensions have also been targets of vitriol.

So, let’s say we wanted to make it possible for the majority of developers to work on software that strictly follows the definition of opensource, which models would be acceptable to make enough money to work on those projects full-time?

  • onlinepersonaOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Do you believe breaking away from the strict OSI opensource definition would be acceptable? It could allow things like:

    • royalties for commercial instances
    • service fees for commercial instances
    • no commercial use

    not all at one of course

    Anti Commercial-AI license