• Lena@gregtech.eu
    1·
    1 month ago

    Yeah open source monetization sucks in the corporate world. Maybe there could be a license that goes something along the lines of “you may use this for free as long as your company’s yearly revenue isn’t over X €”

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      2·
      1 month ago

      I think a better enforcable solution would be taxing the shit out of these corporations, then give state grants to open source projects. I actually looked into licenses that would allow me to force corpos to donate, but they’re unenforcable.

    • RmDebArc_5@feddit.orgEnglish
      1·
      1 month ago

      Tying it to revenue wouldn’t work that well due to inflation. Metas AI has a license that basically says that, but with a user number. Both ideas however would mean that the project isn’t open source anymore

        • RmDebArc_5@feddit.orgEnglish
          0·
          1 month ago

          Quote from the Open Source Initiative definition of Open Source:

          The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

          Source

          • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 month ago

            Not everyone agrees:

            https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html

            In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions.

            First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses. For example, Open Watcom is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately. Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.