Premise: do not take it too seriously.
I’m passionate about FOSS philosophy, however I recognize that many companies or people do not consider it a valid option when it comes to releasing their code with a copyleft license, as they are intended to earn money from their product. Although some techniques exist to earn money with a copyleft license, often are not enough.
So I started to think if there was a way to guarantee a copyleft license but at the same time sell a product as if it was proprietary.
My idea:
A GPL license with a patent tax on for-profit companies.
Wait, what, how???
Let me explain. Once the software is released through this license, those who use it for personal purposes or for non-profit associations are free to use and modify the software.
If, on the other hand, a company/person wants to use the software for profit, then they will have to pay the developers/companies associated with the product sold.
Who to pay? Who decides how much? By definition of Free-Software there is no owner. One thing at a time.
All this may be possible if there is an external organ that decides everything. It could be a company or an association like the free-Software-Foundation.
The external association will have to estimate the monetary value of the software. How to evaluate it? Based on the cost necessary to recreate similar software with similar features. From this a reasonable “x/year” price will be decided for the product.
Who to pay? This is probably the most difficult aspect to decide.
The buyer will pay the intermediary association, which will take a small part and the rest will be distributed to companies/developers who have contributed to the development and maintenance of the software in the last year. Proportionally to the contributions made.
What about forks and redistribution?
Being a copyleft license, redistribution is possible and encouraged. It will also have to be redistributed under the same license. However, those who redistribute the software cannot sell the aforementioned software to companies for profit. It can only be used for personal use or for non-profit activities.
If, on the other hand, the redistributed software, want to be sold too, must be purchased as it is equivalent to a for-profit company. The money of the buyers will go proportionally to the amount of contributions done to the original product and to the fork.
Let’s see the benefits and drawbacks:
Benefits:
- Developers can earn money from their product.
- Developers can benefit from external contributions from the community and an easier diffusion of the software, raising the quality of their work and probably also its security.
- Companies doesn’t want easy competition because it reduce the profits, but with this system, forks help you earn as they invest in your work. And selling the forks makes the company of the original software earn more.
- Encourages continuous development, as the last year is evaluated in the salary assessment.
- Big techs stop stealing other people’s work without making any contribution.
- The software will continue to be completely free for anyone who has no profit.
Drawbacks:
- high implementation difficulties, due to the creation and management of an impartial intermediary association.
- communities may be resistant to this new model.
- being free software, avoiding payment for for-profit companies can be particularly easy. (Think of a graphics software or a cad software). But this already happens abundantly with commercial software. It’s just a little more difficult.
I hope to see a flurry of comments explaining why something like that simply can’t work! So, bring it on and challenge my ideas!