486
submitted 7 months ago by testeronious@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ricdeh@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago

Because that's ~~a bad~~ not even a solution.

[-] qaz@lemmy.world 36 points 7 months ago

What about a license that would require every company with a market cap above 25 B that (indirectly) uses the software to contribute X amount (like $1000 a year) of revenue back?

[-] paraphrand@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I think if that caught on then companies would call it undue burden to sift through all the dependencies they use to make such small payments.

It is a difficult problem. But on the face of it your suggestion seems very reasonable.

[-] far_university1990@feddit.de 13 points 7 months ago

Maybe that force them to just donate to every dependency, probably cheaper on their level. And better for project.

[-] qaz@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

GitHub has a tool built-in to show all dependencies, it's not that hard to write a little script to check the LICENSE files in the repositories. I'm sure one of the biggest companies in the world has the ability to do that.

[-] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 5 points 6 months ago

One of the biggest companies in the world used Copilot to give its users code scraped from GitHub projects without telling them it came from GitHub and that it's under various licenses that need to be followed.

https://githubcopilotlitigation.com/case-updates.html

[-] Lmaydev@programming.dev 2 points 7 months ago

If dual licensing was standard the software that uses things like xz would pay down the line so everything was funded.

[-] Astongt615@lemmy.one 4 points 7 months ago

I mean this is already a thing to certain degrees right? Virtualization platforms I use both are free for personal use, but not business use, or at least certain feature package use isn't permitted. What's the difference? Putting the software under a different license/eula?

[-] qaz@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Yes, but the proposed license would also be free for businesses except for the largest in the world.

[-] Astongt615@lemmy.one 2 points 6 months ago

Why limit it? If you're actively making money, or you are a licensed business attempting to do so, people actively helping you build business deserve to be compensated. If a developer just happened to live in your area and said "I could make your business better by making this thing for you," would they be worth hiring? What's the saying, socialize the resources, privatize the profits? Size << Intent

this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
486 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

48017 readers
778 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS