4 ms·
Actually the proposed license model doesn't waive any author's commercial rights whatsoever. Every author would still have the right to do with his code whateve
by zeit_geist 15y ago
Actually the proposed license model doesn't waive any author's commercial rights whatsoever. Every author would still have the right to do with his code whatever he/she likes.
However, there is restriction about the process of creating a profit derived from the software. At that point, it is about to give a "fair share", which is another problem domain still unsolved.
- Argorak 15y agoOkay, so how do you share the profits? By lines of code? Impact of the contribution? Haggling? PPP (Price per patch)? And, moreover: * What rights do I own in the parts that I receive royalties for? You say, I still own the rights. But you also say that I am restricted from creating profit with the software I contribute to. Why would I do that? Also, most of the code I contribute will most likely not be usable outside of the project. * What do you do if the holder of a piece of code goes missing? (Not an uncommon problem, but it gets harder if money is involved) * What happens if my piece of code is removed from the software, do the royalties fade? * What happens if the body caring for all such things goes defunct? (Not unlikely, considering its a company) * How do you foster a group of people that actually wants to take part in such a scheme? Also, my point was that its is fundamentally non-"open". You can have any weird kind of profit scheme with source disclosure, but that doesn't make it open source. As I said before: i see you don't want to make the jump of letting go of the (perceived) money, which I am fine with. But please don't use the word 'open' for that.