You can require payment from big companies, but then it’s source-available, not OSI open source. The practical path is dual licensing (AGPL/commercial style). The real bottleneck is enforcement budget and legal stamina when someone violates it.
To give credit, this a question I'm asking after reading this blog post, but a solution for the stifling unfairness of commercialization in open-source is something I've been thinking about for a good while. The essay "The Cathedral and the Bizarre" on https://marktarver.com is also worth reading, despite that I find some of the arguments to be in bad faith.
I'm trying to imagine something other than GPL. The fact that the GPL license is respected in the vast majority of cases, without a precedent being necessary is very exciting.
> Why don't our overworked, underpaid open-source developers license their software with something to the effect of "If you make more than $1,000,000, pay me.
Because that isn't open source, and is arguably not enforceable anyway.
How do you define "make $1M"? There are mega corporations with billions in revenue that somehow have a negative tax bill each year, so clearly taxable income isn't a reliable indicator.
Conversely a non profit organisation may have several million in donations/income but spend all of it on their charitable causes.
So clearly net revenue isn't a reliable indicator either.
If you don't want to release software under a licence without monetary terms, then don't. No one is forcing you to do that.
Do you think it's not enforceable because of that definition? Revenue of $1M alone (not net revenue) should be a rough proxy of organization size. If a company makes that kind of money it should be able organize its expenses to pay a reasonable price for the software they rely on. There could be an exception for non-profits, if it would make more sense. If companies were rational they would already be paying the reasonable amount for "normal" open-source software, since unmaintained software in their supply chain also can also become a problem for them.
BTPL (I just think BTPL is neat) has these concrete terms:
>You may use the software for the benefit of your [small business] if it meets all these criteria:
* had fewer than 20 total individuals working as employees and independent contractors at all times during the last tax year
* earned less than $1,000,000 total revenue in the last tax year
* received less than $1,000,000 total debt, equity, and other investment in the last five tax years, counting investment in predecessor companies that reorganized into, merged with, or spun out your company
> Do you think it's not enforceable because of that definition?
I think companies with millions or billions in revenue pay lawyers a lot to find loopholes in things like this.
> BTPL
I have no clue what that is, and I can't even find a reference to it anyway. All I found is a public library somewhere and something about a Pakistani power company or something.
> * had fewer than 20 total individuals working as employees and independent contractors at all times during the last tax year
That's simple to get around, and big companies already do it. Hire an external development agency. They might be sitting in your office but they're neither employees nor independent contractors.
Ultimately though, the point I made earlier is still the most relevant response. If you don't like OSS licences, don't use one. Use whatever you're comfortable with. But don't imagine for a moment that you're better able to identify the needs of every one else who writes software and does use an OSS licence.
Regarding BTPL, it's a license called Big Time Public License, which I mentioned in my original post. It was written by this guy that has written a bunch of experimental software licenses.[1]
If I were to choose a license in an informed way, I would want to really understand other people's choice of using OSS licenses. I almost exclusively use open-source/libre programs in my devices and make code contributions occasionally. I think I'm familiar with the ecosystem more than the commercial (proprietary) ecosystem. The freedom bestowed by owning the copy of the source code is very important in my opinion. While OSS is the best model we have right now, I and others see flaws, like dependency-chain failures, maintainer burnout and not-so-good incentives like keeping your system unpolished/hard to use so support can be your income.
Perhaps only 80% of the monetization will succeed because of loopholes, but suppose you can tack on monetization to an open-source license. It's still better than 0% monetization. In plain terms, my question is, even if it would no longer be real open-source (true), why wouldn't developers want that?
Of course they absolutely can license their software any way they like. That is their prerogative. Personally I write software for a living and it's all licensed with a commercial license.
By definition then I am not an Open Source Programmer. (I work on the odd Open Source project, but that's not the same thing.)
So any programmer can license things anyway they like. If their license is Open Source compatible then they're free to call themselves an Open Source programmer.
Your suggestion is equivalent to asking why an amateur golfer can receive prize money in a professional tournament. They very much can though, but then they're no longer an amateur.
You can require payment from big companies, but then it’s source-available, not OSI open source. The practical path is dual licensing (AGPL/commercial style). The real bottleneck is enforcement budget and legal stamina when someone violates it.
To give credit, this a question I'm asking after reading this blog post, but a solution for the stifling unfairness of commercialization in open-source is something I've been thinking about for a good while. The essay "The Cathedral and the Bizarre" on https://marktarver.com is also worth reading, despite that I find some of the arguments to be in bad faith.
https://pointless.one/my-next-project-wont-be-floss/
> We don't know if GPL works in court.
If lacking precedent is your main concern, there are no software licenses that are likely to fill your criterion.
I'm trying to imagine something other than GPL. The fact that the GPL license is respected in the vast majority of cases, without a precedent being necessary is very exciting.
> Why don't our overworked, underpaid open-source developers license their software with something to the effect of "If you make more than $1,000,000, pay me.
Because that isn't open source, and is arguably not enforceable anyway.
How do you define "make $1M"? There are mega corporations with billions in revenue that somehow have a negative tax bill each year, so clearly taxable income isn't a reliable indicator.
Conversely a non profit organisation may have several million in donations/income but spend all of it on their charitable causes.
So clearly net revenue isn't a reliable indicator either.
If you don't want to release software under a licence without monetary terms, then don't. No one is forcing you to do that.
Do you think it's not enforceable because of that definition? Revenue of $1M alone (not net revenue) should be a rough proxy of organization size. If a company makes that kind of money it should be able organize its expenses to pay a reasonable price for the software they rely on. There could be an exception for non-profits, if it would make more sense. If companies were rational they would already be paying the reasonable amount for "normal" open-source software, since unmaintained software in their supply chain also can also become a problem for them.
BTPL (I just think BTPL is neat) has these concrete terms:
>You may use the software for the benefit of your [small business] if it meets all these criteria:
* had fewer than 20 total individuals working as employees and independent contractors at all times during the last tax year
* earned less than $1,000,000 total revenue in the last tax year
* received less than $1,000,000 total debt, equity, and other investment in the last five tax years, counting investment in predecessor companies that reorganized into, merged with, or spun out your company
> Do you think it's not enforceable because of that definition?
I think companies with millions or billions in revenue pay lawyers a lot to find loopholes in things like this.
> BTPL
I have no clue what that is, and I can't even find a reference to it anyway. All I found is a public library somewhere and something about a Pakistani power company or something.
> * had fewer than 20 total individuals working as employees and independent contractors at all times during the last tax year
That's simple to get around, and big companies already do it. Hire an external development agency. They might be sitting in your office but they're neither employees nor independent contractors.
Ultimately though, the point I made earlier is still the most relevant response. If you don't like OSS licences, don't use one. Use whatever you're comfortable with. But don't imagine for a moment that you're better able to identify the needs of every one else who writes software and does use an OSS licence.
Regarding BTPL, it's a license called Big Time Public License, which I mentioned in my original post. It was written by this guy that has written a bunch of experimental software licenses.[1]
If I were to choose a license in an informed way, I would want to really understand other people's choice of using OSS licenses. I almost exclusively use open-source/libre programs in my devices and make code contributions occasionally. I think I'm familiar with the ecosystem more than the commercial (proprietary) ecosystem. The freedom bestowed by owning the copy of the source code is very important in my opinion. While OSS is the best model we have right now, I and others see flaws, like dependency-chain failures, maintainer burnout and not-so-good incentives like keeping your system unpolished/hard to use so support can be your income.
Perhaps only 80% of the monetization will succeed because of loopholes, but suppose you can tack on monetization to an open-source license. It's still better than 0% monetization. In plain terms, my question is, even if it would no longer be real open-source (true), why wouldn't developers want that?
[1] https://github.com/berneout
I concur.
>> Why don't our overworked, underpaid open-source developers license their software
Of course they absolutely can license their software any way they like. That is their prerogative. Personally I write software for a living and it's all licensed with a commercial license.
By definition then I am not an Open Source Programmer. (I work on the odd Open Source project, but that's not the same thing.)
So any programmer can license things anyway they like. If their license is Open Source compatible then they're free to call themselves an Open Source programmer.
Your suggestion is equivalent to asking why an amateur golfer can receive prize money in a professional tournament. They very much can though, but then they're no longer an amateur.