[circular_logic]

I think these collectives would end up behaving much like the music industry in terms of chasing licence fees, suing orgs for infringement, and having too much power on what cut was handed down to developers.

Personally I would rather software be Free than have a unavoidable middle man taking a % cut.

[rndhouse]

I'm working on developing a solution along the lines outlined in the article. But I think there's a way to decentralize the "FOSS collective".

I've been working on OpenFare where payment plans are defined in code. Check it out here:

https://github.com/openfare/openfare

[commoner]

While I appreciate that you've released a new source-available license to the public, the OpenFare License as described in the README is not free or open source.

FOSS software can be sold, but if the software license requires the user to pay to continue using it, the software is not free because it does not unconditionally grant the user the freedom to run it:

> The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not forbidden or stopped from making it run.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#run-the-progr...

That restriction also means the software is no longer open source, since it discriminates against commercial users who do not pay:

> The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

https://opensource.org/osd

Source-available licenses are a middle ground between proprietary and FOSS licenses, and they certainly serve a purpose. But, they're not FOSS licenses unless they allow the user to use, modify, and redistribute the software without exception.

[eeZah7Ux]

No thanks. This approach violates the spirit of FLOSS by encouraging developers to focus on popularity rather than quality in order to make bank.

It takes away the collective aspect and replaces it with extreme individualism. There's already a software model for that: closed source.

Also, you posted the same URL many times. Please do not spam HN.

[tpoacher]

> The OpenFare License is a lot like the MIT License. The code can be modified, forked, reproduced, executed, and compiled without restriction by anyone. With two exceptions: > > Commercial users are subject to payment plans defined in code. > The license and payment plans can only be modified by the license copyright holder.

I like this idea in principle! Of course, enforcing it is another question altogether, but ... a step in the right direction, nonetheless.

Question, why does the payment plan appearing in the code rather than in the license make a difference? Assuming you're not allowed to distribute/modify etc without also including the license, does it matter where the payment plan is coded? Or am I missing the point here?

[cycomanic]

What evidence do you have that these collectives would behave like the music industry? Generally the music industry does not go after the large companies, but instead after small individuals.

In contrast the collectives would go after large corporations which profit in the billions from volunteer work without giving significantly back. In fact the argument that situation is that currently you're paying the middle man (those corporations) without the actual creators getting anything.

[anaganisk]

Thats what Trademark, Copyright, DRM, WhatsApp ToS and all claim. “We want to protect creators/snail businesses ”, but they end up as tools to go after little guys.

[tpoacher]

One one hand, given human nature and evidence thus far, I would agree with your worry.

On the other hand, the music thing is a mess partly because of ambiguity of what constitutes use (e.g. is a coffee shop video infringing because a piece of music was heard in the background?)

I would hope that things are not as ambiguous with code libraries. They are either used or they are not.

Having said that I can see shit hitting the fan with arguing over what constitutes a fork vs derivative work etc.