> The companies that benefit most from it contribute disproportionately less than their benefit. We covered the structural reason for this in the previous post on PostgreSQL’s licensing — permissive licenses are an invitation to use freely, and the invitation is widely accepted. pgBackRest is the same problem in personal form. Not a license issue; a payroll issue.
On the licensing point, here's my wildest imagination: what if those permissive licenses had one small condition — companies profiting from the project must contribute a tiny fraction toward social good? No profit, no obligation.
I think this actually matches what most maintainers originally wanted. They go open-source for influence and respect, trying to make the world better, making their work freely usable by anyone, even competitors. Given that, it's quite reasonable to ask those who profit from it to share a tiny fraction back with the world.
Open source projects may die, but the love and spirit behind them doesn't — and a profit-sharing clause like this could make that spirit more explicit and more undeniable.
On the licensing point, here's my wildest imagination: what if those permissive licenses had one small condition — companies profiting from the project must contribute a tiny fraction toward social good? No profit, no obligation.
I think this actually matches what most maintainers originally wanted. They go open-source for influence and respect, trying to make the world better, making their work freely usable by anyone, even competitors. Given that, it's quite reasonable to ask those who profit from it to share a tiny fraction back with the world.
Open source projects may die, but the love and spirit behind them doesn't — and a profit-sharing clause like this could make that spirit more explicit and more undeniable.