zlacker

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

>>cpach+tM5
I've listened to only 2/3 of it, but: he promotes Crystal+Lucky (crystal is compiled) as good replacements for Ruby and Rails. The second part of his talk is about promoting a new variant of open license called PostOpen, which will require commercial users of Post Open software to pay 1% for using, 1.5% for using without sharing modifications. There is a 10% fee for worse offense. All percentages are percentages of revenue. This is partly aimed at large companies that host open source software with few modifications as a service and charge for it. Money goes to PostOpen and possibly conventional Open Source developers.

>>george+OO5
I think any license that requires a percentage of revenue is DOA.

First because involving all the chicanery of accounting to figure out my fee is asking for lots of resources just to calculate and audit fees.

Second, unpredictable costs are bad. If my company’s revenue doubles in a year, that doesn’t mean that my department’s budget doubles. Or that I even have enough earnings to cover licenses.

Finally, this is hard enough with a single product. My org uses thousands of products. If they all charge 1%, where does that leave me.

PS- morally this just seems dumb. If my grocery store charged me more or less depending on my income or the value I derive from a tomato, I won’t shop there. Just publish a price and let people decide to buy or not.

>>prepen+U56
Maybe. That depends if OSS devs switch to this or not. This only hurts those making money off OSS which is fair. Think of it as contributing to improving the OSS.

>>mrtwee+Fk6
I think the more software the better so if people like using this then good for them. More software in the world.

But it doesn’t replace OSS and I think will produce different software. I can’t imagine many developers switching to this. I wouldn’t contribute to a project with this license because I don’t want to bother with some incremental level of income. I’d rather just donate time.