I saw this some time ago and wasn’t really sure how to feel about it. On one hand it’s good to make corporations compensate maintainers, but I also don’t want to be forced to ask for a fee because my project uses another project that uses this.

  • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    This is essentially what Mozilla is doing but providing a legal framework for all open source projects.

    As an open source developer, my initial reaction is that this isn’t good. You’re just shifting the problem. Your code remains open source so if you have a python or JavaScript library that doesn’t require compiling, you can’t use this.

    Not only that, but FOSS requires you to provide build instructions for your binaries. Someone can clone your repository and run it through CI/CD and have a binary.

    I’m willing to be proven wrong here.

    I’ve seen only one method work well: strong copyleft FOSS licenses like AGPL that essentially make it impossible for a company like Amazon from profiting off your code without a separate agreement.

    You could add a non-commercial clause to your open source license. I can’t find the one that I used to use back in the day but essentially the goal is to augment whatever license you use by attaching a preamble that dictates how the software can be used.

    Attaching that clause does push the software out of FOSS and into source available since you are restricting who can use the software, which is why I stopped using it.

    Edit: found the clause I used to use back in the day. I don’t personally recommend it over more copy left licenses.

    • 野麦さん@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      Dual licensure is the obvious solution. Have a strong copyleft license as default (Sorry MIT!) and then have a non-transferrable commercial license for proprietary businesses.