3 ms·
I think we should have a standardized MIT license that require paying above a certain market cap or something. An anti-sassfiy license too. That's what AGPL is
by searchableguy 6y ago
I think we should have a standardized MIT license that require paying above a certain market cap or something. An anti-sassfiy license too. That's what AGPL is used for currently but it focuses on contribution and openness rather than monetization.
Many of new database projects and infrastructure tools come up with their own licenses to protect themselves from such problems. A standardized approach would work better for everyone.
- ddevault 6y agoBeware: the approach you describe qualifies as neither "open source" nor "free software". It might be worthwhile to develop such licenses and experiment with this distribution model - but please call it something else, like "source available" or "fair source".
- searchableguy 6y agoI am aware. The problem is many companies won't contribute to open source with code but might pay up if they have no choice. Why can't monetary compensation be counted as contribution? The core point of OSS is freedom to the users, not big companies. MIT provide more freedom to users than AGPL and so does money by empowering contributors to keep working on it. I think there is a case that this should be open source.
- ddevault 6y agoMonetary contribution certainly can be considered contribution. But FOSS is not about "contribution" at all. Big companies are users, too.
- searchableguy 6y ago> Big companies are users, too. I think we disagree here. Big companies aren't users in the same way I am. People have different power dynamics in the real world. I won't treat rich people the same for stealing food the way I treat poor people for stealing food. One can afford it but still chooses to steal.