5 ms·
Could be easily solved by stating that if you used the product and your income is bigger than $x per year, you owe $1000 to the project per year. But the OS gur
by GoToRO 3y ago
Could be easily solved by stating that if you used the product and your income is bigger than $x per year, you owe $1000 to the project per year. But the OS gurus convinced the developers that it should be free for everybody. Even companies that have billions in cash. Develooers are really smart but also very gullible.
- probablynish 3y ago> if you used the product and your income is bigger than $x per year, you owe $1000 to the project per year How would you enforce this?
- londons_explore 3y agoDon't enforce it. You'll still get a decent pay from those who want to play by the rules.
- devmor 3y agoAsk Unity and Epic, seems to work for them.
- connicpu 3y agoLarge corporations are going to play by the rules just because in general it's cheaper than risking going to court eventually over not following them. Sure some small fries who borderline should be paying you may not, but in the grand scheme that won't be losing you a ton of money compared to the big fish who will pay.
- probablynish 3y agoOh that makes sense. I thought the suggestion was referring to individuals and not corporations - eg "individuals should buy a license if they earn more than $80k/year" or something. That seems tougher to enforce.
- GoToRO 3y agoAs others said it enforces itself. Also if a company has wild success with your software there is a good chance you will find out. Also, in my country there is an angency that checks that companies paid for the software they use.
- bogwog 3y agoThe "it's not open source" gate keepers really are bringing everybody down. I don't know why people care so much about the OSI and their arbitrary and narrow definition of such a generic term? It seems like owning a premium domain name (opensource.org) is all that matters for having credibility on the internet. Maybe I'm being unfair, and that org actually does something useful? Can someone enlighten me if that's the case?
- ghaff 3y agoWhy do you care so much if your license is an OSI-approved one? No one is keeping you from releasing your software under any license (or lack thereof) you choose.
- josephcsible 3y agoGP doesn't want to follow the rules of open source, but still wants the benefits of it.
- umvi 3y agoSounds a lot like Unity's recent pricing changes ("if you make more than $X, you need to start paying us a fee per install")
- KolmogorovComp 3y agoThere is a way to do that while still keeping your project free-software. Set a dual license (A)GPL/Commercial License. Most businesses will not want to have anything to do with GPL so will choose the commercial one, will other open-source users/companies will not be affected. Gifksi is a successful example of such pattern: https://gif.ski/license.html https://gif.ski/license.html
- bityard 3y agoIt's strange how some people believe that their own worldview should be the only correct one. I have a few small open source projects and have contributed to hundreds more, and I am perfectly happy knowing I will never see a cent for those efforts. My reward for all of that work is not monetary and I would never want it to be. It's like people are straight-up _offended_ at the notion that there might be a person out there doing programming for free and then giving it to the world with nothing expected in return.
- GoToRO 3y agoYou forgot that I was answering to an article, and what the article said.