(no title)
stephenr | 8 days ago
I think companies with millions or billions in revenue pay lawyers a lot to find loopholes in things like this.
> BTPL
I have no clue what that is, and I can't even find a reference to it anyway. All I found is a public library somewhere and something about a Pakistani power company or something.
> * had fewer than 20 total individuals working as employees and independent contractors at all times during the last tax year
That's simple to get around, and big companies already do it. Hire an external development agency. They might be sitting in your office but they're neither employees nor independent contractors.
Ultimately though, the point I made earlier is still the most relevant response. If you don't like OSS licences, don't use one. Use whatever you're comfortable with. But don't imagine for a moment that you're better able to identify the needs of every one else who writes software and does use an OSS licence.
arboles|8 days ago
If I were to choose a license in an informed way, I would want to really understand other people's choice of using OSS licenses. I almost exclusively use open-source/libre programs in my devices and make code contributions occasionally. I think I'm familiar with the ecosystem more than the commercial (proprietary) ecosystem. The freedom bestowed by owning the copy of the source code is very important in my opinion. While OSS is the best model we have right now, I and others see flaws, like dependency-chain failures, maintainer burnout and not-so-good incentives like keeping your system unpolished/hard to use so support can be your income.
Perhaps only 80% of the monetization will succeed because of loopholes, but suppose you can tack on monetization to an open-source license. It's still better than 0% monetization. In plain terms, my question is, even if it would no longer be real open-source (true), why wouldn't developers want that?
[1] https://github.com/berneout