this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
41 points (95.6% liked)

Programming

22392 readers
41 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
snowe@programming.dev
Ategon@programming.dev
MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz
UlrikHD@programming.dev
41
Bruce Perens proposes draft Post-Open Zero Cost License (www.theregister.com)
submitted 1 year ago by mox@lemmy.sdf.org to c/programming@programming.dev
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The basic idea is companies making more than $5 million annually by using Post-Open software in a paid-for product would be required to pay 1 percent of their revenue back to this administrative organization, which would distribute the funds to the maintainers of the participating open source project(s). That would cover all Post-Open software used by the organization.

@CapitalistSusScrofa@lemmynsfw.com sounds a lot like your idea!

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What stops companies from having a shell corporation use the code, and then that shell company rents "services" at a very low cost to a large corp?

I'm thinking something of the opposite if what Google does, where Alphabet (""located"" in Ireland) rents the Google logo to Google, allowing Google to say that their revenue is much less than it actually is.

EDIT: After some research, it seems that they stopped doing that: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/01/google-says-it-will-no-longer-use-double-irish-dutch-sandwich-tax-loophole

But a similar scheme being applied to this license does concern me.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

I share the concern. However, just because things are hard doesn't mean they shouldn't be done. The current free-loading situation of mega-corps is disgusting and if that can be deterred, stifled, or hamstrung, I'm for it. The solution cannot be perfect because legal code is just like code: never perfect. There will always be a loophole somewhere, it just shouldn't be made extremely obvious and easy to find. The harder it is to circumvent, the better.

P.S Fuck Google regardless

Anti Commercial-AI license

load more comments (4 replies)