|
|
|
|
|
by PixelOfDeath
1638 days ago
|
|
This multi licensing is rare compared to all the GPL-only (or comparable open source license) projects. I's basically a big fuck you to anyone who does not commercializes his software but wants to contribute to the software ecosystem and only expects users to also contribute back to it. Maybe we need a GPL4 with a building nuke. "You agree to pay 1 Trillion dollars if you do not publish your changes". |
|
The problem here is that "user contributions" are basically impossible to value. Who knows what they might have contributed, and what value others may be able to derive from those contributions. I can't think of a single good way to translate that into dollars. You could charge engineer hours, but who knows how many they would have contributed.
> Maybe we need a GPL4 with a building nuke. "You agree to pay 1 Trillion dollars if you do not publish your changes".
I hope this is in jest, because I fear something like that would chase off open source developers.
I do think it could use a penalties clause. I would suggest something in the net revenue or profit category. It makes the penalty scale, including scaling down to 0 for other open source projects. I don't want to encourage open source projects ignoring licenses, but I do think suing them for money seems unfair when the currency of open source is really contributions.