3 ms·

I feel like the main issue with projects switching between a permissive and less permissive license and back is that starting out as fully permissive in the fir

I feel like the main issue with projects switching between a permissive and less permissive license and back is that starting out as fully permissive in the first place was the main error. If everybody would just agree to start their open source code as something like source-available or OpenRAIL -requiring companies with more than $5M in annual revenue to pay for the work - we wouldn't be in this situation. https://fair.io/ https://fair.io/

tracerbulletx 5d ago
Yeah its a bait and switch. People want the social credit, early adoption, and community embrace of being open source, but they also want a captive business model.
- amelius 5d ago
  It's not a bait and switch because the old version of the software that was released with the old license can still be used as such. If you call this bait and switch then I suppose this means that you somehow feel entitled to future versions of the software having the same license, forever.
  - aaasssdddgirl 5d ago
    That’s the thing with software, you can automate most future updates, with LLMs and whatnot. Also, the initial software probably didn’t have a lot of known cves when it was sold.
rpdillon 5d ago
They won't do this, because starting out as non-free doesn't get the same traction. Now that I think about it, it's basically a form of enshitification: draw people in with one deal, then after they're onboard, change it to something less favorable.
- amelius 5d ago
  Why is it enshittification if you only have to pay when you have >$5M in revenue? Is your world so shit if you cross that threshold?
  - johnnyanmac 5d ago
    I think the issue is more on how you audit such things. Governments struggle (partially by design, but still) to get proper audits on who uses what and how much money they make. The theory is great, but I'm unsure how you execute this.
    - amelius 5d ago
      Well, that's even more reason to not complain about it.
    - _carbyau_ 5d ago
      It isn't about catching every last >5m business out. It is about having a rule that can be enforced when it is obvious to do so.
      - johnnyanmac 5d ago
        Fair enough. I'm in support of it, but it seems like any company >5m is also going to give a big legal fight if and when they are challenged on such aspects. But I'm all for a good attempt at taking our wealth back either way.
    - kelnos 5d ago
      I think the maintainer is still better off if only 50% of companies that should be paying are actually paying. The alternative is to just get nothing. And if the maintainer wants to, they can always try to go after some of the more egregious offenders.
  - rpdillon 5d ago
    I'm just observing the incentives. There is a reason these licenses have not taken off, especially for nascent projects.
deleted 5d ago
[deleted]

tracerbulletx 5d ago

Yeah its a bait and switch. People want the social credit, early adoption, and community embrace of being open source, but they also want a captive business model.

amelius 5d ago
It's not a bait and switch because the old version of the software that was released with the old license can still be used as such. If you call this bait and switch then I suppose this means that you somehow feel entitled to future versions of the software having the same license, forever.
- aaasssdddgirl 5d ago
  That’s the thing with software, you can automate most future updates, with LLMs and whatnot. Also, the initial software probably didn’t have a lot of known cves when it was sold.

rpdillon 5d ago

They won't do this, because starting out as non-free doesn't get the same traction. Now that I think about it, it's basically a form of enshitification: draw people in with one deal, then after they're onboard, change it to something less favorable.

amelius 5d ago
Why is it enshittification if you only have to pay when you have >$5M in revenue? Is your world so shit if you cross that threshold?
- johnnyanmac 5d ago
  I think the issue is more on how you audit such things. Governments struggle (partially by design, but still) to get proper audits on who uses what and how much money they make. The theory is great, but I'm unsure how you execute this.
  - amelius 5d ago
    Well, that's even more reason to not complain about it.
  - _carbyau_ 5d ago
    It isn't about catching every last >5m business out. It is about having a rule that can be enforced when it is obvious to do so.
    - johnnyanmac 5d ago
      Fair enough. I'm in support of it, but it seems like any company >5m is also going to give a big legal fight if and when they are challenged on such aspects. But I'm all for a good attempt at taking our wealth back either way.
  - kelnos 5d ago
    I think the maintainer is still better off if only 50% of companies that should be paying are actually paying. The alternative is to just get nothing. And if the maintainer wants to, they can always try to go after some of the more egregious offenders.
- rpdillon 5d ago
  I'm just observing the incentives. There is a reason these licenses have not taken off, especially for nascent projects.

deleted 5d ago

[deleted]