Comment by cxr
2 years ago
> Imagine a new type of open source license that mandated paying a membership fee to a global foundation to use the code commercially.
That would by definition not be open source.
2 years ago
> Imagine a new type of open source license that mandated paying a membership fee to a global foundation to use the code commercially.
That would by definition not be open source.
I would not care so much about the definition of open source.
My ideal scenario is that code is open, can be improved and reused among commercial and non-commercial endeavors. I also would like that some of the value created by users of the open code flows back to the creators.
Individual commercial licenses do not create this ideal as they are monolithic and does not reflect that open source is a network of many dependencies.
Companies would be willing to pay for open source but they do not want to manage each node in their dependency graph individually. Thus the need for some centralized tax and redistribution system.
This is the most underrated comment in this whole thread.