zlacker

>>zdw+(OP)
tl;dr anyone? (Pretty please)

>>cpach+tM5
I just skimmed the video so my TL;DR might not capture everything he said.

Basically, he advocates a new license that he wants to develop that basically improves remuneration for open source developers. Use case: A "Post Open" software is used by a company, then this company has to pay a certain percentage (1 to 10%) of their revenue to the "Post Open" software. If it is using multiple "Post Open" packages this percentage is divided among them (according to usage).

Software in this scheme will be allowed to be modified, redistributed etc. and it will also contain a public API that defines the boundaries of the program (so it's not about linking anymore).

I hope that captures the key points.

>>Azrael+rP5
What's unclear is how is the revenue percentage split across all of the various contributors of a particular "post open" package. Suppose there are 10 "Post Open" packages; do all of the packages deserve to get an equal share of the 1% rev share? Maybe some "post open" packages are more technically complex than others? Maybe some "post open" packages are more key to the value-add than others.

Even if there is only a single "post open" package which gets the full 1% of the rev share, what about one developer which contributes a whitespace or spelling fix, versus another developer which contributes a key part of the package? What if one developer contributes a huge number of lines of code, but it's for a feature which isn't actually used at all by a particular billion dollar use case of said "post open" package?

The devil is really in the details.....