Yeah open source monetization sucks in the corporate world. Maybe there could be a license that goes something along the lines of "you may use this for free as long as your company's yearly revenue isn't over X €"

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 39 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think a better enforcable solution would be taxing the shit out of these corporations, then give state grants to open source projects. I actually looked into licenses that would allow me to force corpos to donate, but they're unenforcable.

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

Ultimately, the solution to many problems caused by corporations abusing their positions is through taxation

[–] RmDebArc_5@feddit.org 51 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Tying it to revenue wouldn't work that well due to inflation. Metas AI has a license that basically says that, but with a user number. Both ideas however would mean that the project isn't open source anymore

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 18 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Open source doesn't mean free for everyone for every purpose

[–] RmDebArc_5@feddit.org 40 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Quote from the Open Source Initiative definition of Open Source:

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

Source

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 32 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Not everyone agrees:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html

In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions.

First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses. For example, Open Watcom is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately. Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Of course they don't qualify as free licences but they are still open source

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes, that was my point.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 3 days ago

Yeah we agree

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 9 points 3 days ago

Ah yes 2026 where we let corporations define our language for their own goals

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev -5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Yes, quote from your Bible. It will always be right.

[–] lena@gregtech.eu 11 points 3 days ago

True, I don't think there's really a good solution to this (other than getting rid of capitalism)

[–] boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net 47 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Called "Fair use" or "ethical software" but people hate it and lawyers tell you it is not enforceable for... some reason

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Which is extra funny because that's literally how the unity game engine license used to be and lawyers were fine with it.

[–] boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 days ago

True

[–] xvapx@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

I mean, the obvious solution is to use a strong copyleft license like AGPL and sell private licenses for closed-source projects.

[–] Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What about something like "1 gold bar price*7.4"? It would keep up with inflation way more. Currently 1kg of gold has a value around 135.992€ btw

[I am not an economist, i am just a random dude who thought it was a good idea due to gold value having always the same value or smth like that]

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Gold markets are too volatile.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago

Epic does that but it's under a contract (user agreement) not the license and OSS can't afford the legal fees that they can.

The other issue is putting the license under a shell company.