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.

  • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
    34·
    9 months ago

    This is not FOSS then. FOSS puts no restrictions on downstream use of your software other than that you acknowledge and credit the original authors… This is “Open Source” with strings attached. It’s no different than being forced to sign an NDA to see your code.

    You either make it free for everybody, or then it isn’t free software.

    • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.comOP
      936·
      9 months ago

      Wrong. Free in FOSS means freely distributable, not free of cost. My idea of cost is just different than “pay for download”.

      • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
        261·
        9 months ago

        It does mean free of cost if the person downstream from you decides to not charge for it after getting it from you and forking it. That’s why you’re not finding a FOSS license that allows this. Because again, that’s not FOSS.

        • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.comOP
          323·
          9 months ago

          From the osi website i read a text that leads me to believe that the person downstream can charge as much as they want, they never have to give you anything for it if they add at least one more product.

          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.

          To me this reads like a corpo scam to get free work.

      • gallopingsnail@lemmy.sdf.org
        221·
        9 months ago

        I think you may be mistaken.

        By definition, if the user of the software is not free to do as they wish with the software, the software is not free/libre. It could fit the definition of open source, but it is not free/libre if you are restricting what the user can do with your source code.

        And starting comments with “Wrong.” Is just rude.

        • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.comOP
          722·
          9 months ago

          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.

          So, if I understand this correctly, open source means free beer, just not if you sell the end product.

          its all a scam for free work for corpos then. Very disappointing.

          • Markaos@lemmy.one
            17·
            9 months ago

            So, if I understand this correctly, open source means free beer, just not if you sell the end product.

            Yes, once you give the beer to someone, you can’t require any further payments no matter what they do with it. Free software philosophy says users are free to use the software however they wish and for whatever purpose they wish without any barriers (like having to pay for commercial use).

            its all a scam for free work for corpos then. Very disappointing.

            I’m sorry you feel that way, and it’s becoming a not-so-rare sentiment lately (or at least I’ve started noticing it more), but I don’t agree. Look at (A)GPL and how many companies are doing their best to avoid such code - like when Google made their own C library for Android and even stated that its main goal was to avoid copyleft licenses. I’ve also seen plenty of people say that GPL code is pretty much useless for their work due to their company’s policies forbidding its use.

            I also think that revenue-based loyalties screw over small companies the most - sure, you get the donations from the massive companies that can work with 1% of their revenue gone while also keeping it free for non-commercial users, but in my view you also help those same massive corporations by making the software less viable for their smaller competitors who don’t have the economies of scale on their side, and for whom that 1% might legitimately break the bank.

            And to be clear, I don’t mean any of my arguments as some kind of “gotcha! Look, I’m right and you’re wrong”, I just thought I might share my reasoning for why I don’t think your statement is fair.

            • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.comOP
              66·
              9 months ago

              Thats a very reasonable answer, in brutal contrast to all the childish trolls in this community that flooded my inbox and are blocked now.

              I‘ll probably just leave it at that. Its probably agpl forever for me since I‘m not giving my work to anyone who thinks they can just fuck over the little man. If we cant work out a foss version that is fair to devs then it is copyleft.

              Still very disappointing. Thank you for providing the explanation though. I appreciate it.