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.

  • krolden@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Think of all the other free software you’ve used in your life. Were you selfishly freeloading?

    • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      Not ever. I started donating when I could financially and understood why it is important.

      The discussion we had was that people who can, who profit from this software, give back their fair share.

      People can disagree with my idea all they want but profit seekers freeloading is a huge flaw in foss.

      • krolden@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        The whole point is that their fair share is sharing code modifications and making them available to be merged upstream.

        Do you think Redhat and the many other companies writing open source tools and drivers should be paying some of their revenue even though they’ve contributed a shit ton of code upstream?

        • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          No. To the contrary. I think companies controbutions to foss should be weighed against it but I also think that using others work should come with an obligation to contribute an equal value than you get if you are profitseeking.

          The reason is that a lot of companies contribute nothing and say they would pay if they had to but cant donate because its optional and their policy is to spare respurces as much as they can.