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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> any company >5m is also going to give a big legal fight
I don't know about any company doing that. I guess some would do so on principle. But I honestly suspect it'd be a cost/risk based decision.
Who knows. But there is seemingly no carrot to entice those with money to give some of it to support the project, so a stick it is.
I like the Blender way of, contribute money = your features requests get some priority. But that only works if the company needs something.
mentalgear · · focus · HN ↗
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.
<a href="https://fair.io/" rel="nofollow">https://fair.io/
tracerbulletx · · focus · HN ↗
amelius · · focus · HN ↗
aaasssdddgirl · · focus · HN ↗
Also, the initial software probably didn’t have a lot of known cves when it was sold.
rpdillon · · focus · HN ↗
amelius · · focus · HN ↗
johnnyanmac · · focus · HN ↗
The theory is great, but I'm unsure how you execute this.
amelius · · focus · HN ↗
_carbyau_ · · focus · HN ↗
It is about having a rule that can be enforced when it is obvious to do so.
johnnyanmac · · focus · HN ↗
But I'm all for a good attempt at taking our wealth back either way.
_carbyau_ · · focus · HN ↗
I don't know about any company doing that. I guess some would do so on principle. But I honestly suspect it'd be a cost/risk based decision.
Who knows. But there is seemingly no carrot to entice those with money to give some of it to support the project, so a stick it is.
I like the Blender way of, contribute money = your features requests get some priority. But that only works if the company needs something.
kelnos · · focus · HN ↗
And if the maintainer wants to, they can always try to go after some of the more egregious offenders.
rpdillon · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]