[robmensching]

I have seen some other projects show interest and a few have adopted it. I've not checked in with any of them. The Open Source Maintenance Fee is pretty new, and I've not been promoting it for use by other Open Source projects (yet) because I want to resolve any "OSMF bugs" using my project (WiX Toolset).

After the bugs are worked out, then I'll recommend it more widely and we'll see if it catches on then. I've had a number of maintainers express interest and inquire about how it is going.

[pabs3]

Is the OSMF EULA compatible with the GNU GPL family of licenses?

[robmensching]

It should be. The goal was to make it compatible with all OSS and FOSS licenses.

[ApolloFortyNine]

Some licenses might allow you to distribute binaries with extra restrictions, but the one you chose almost certainly doesn't.

>For any file you distribute that contains code from the software (in source code or binary format), you must provide recipients the source code to that file along with a copy of this license, which license will govern that file.

So your nuget package and github release would be a binary distribution, what license applies? It's the reciprocal license, not your attempt to attach a maintenance fee for clicking download license.

And this clause doubles down

>If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.

Your license essentially explicitly disallows you from doing what your trying to do. Will anyone test you for $10/m or just using a competitor? Maybe not.

This also goes horribly against the spirit of open source software, if every small package on a Linux distro did this it'd cost tens of thousands at least to even launch the OS. But the attempt to backdoor downloads from a package repository is what I find most heinous here.

[robmensching]

> Some licenses might allow you to distribute binaries with extra restrictions, but the one you chose almost certainly doesn't

The OSMF EULA has been through a few lawyers now. If you're a lawyer, we're happy to have the discussion on the Open Source Maintenance Fee's Discussion forum.

> So your nuget package and github release would be a binary distribution, what license applies?

If I understand your question correctly, the EULA applies to the binary distribution.

> Your license essentially explicitly disallows you from doing what your trying to do.

No. The source code is available, and there are no restrictions placed on your use of the source code.

> This also goes horribly against the spirit of open source software,

I disagree, but the OSI doesn't say much about it specifically. The FSF, however, explicitly calls out the idea of paying a fee for the convenience of acquiring the software. This is straight in line with the FSF.

> if every small package on a Linux distro did this it'd cost tens of thousands at least to even launch the OS

No, because you only pay the Maintenance Fee for the software you directly depend upon. And if you don't use the Open Source project to make money, you don't pay anything. These catastrophic scenarios you are drawing up are not the reality.