• qaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      5 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.

      • Lmaydev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

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

      • qaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 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.

    • Astongt615@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

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