I tried doing this when I worked in the UK government. It is a surprisingly hard problem.
Firstly, lots of OSS doesn't have a well defined owner. So who gets the money?
Do they actually want to take money from the "big bad state"?
Is there a mechanism to pay them? If so, which budget does it come from?
Government spending is heavily scrutinised. Why are we spending money on something that is "free"? What due diligence has been done? Should it be a competitive tender?
It was sometimes possible to get round this. Pay for someone to speak at an internal event, buy a support package, pay for training etc.
Governments (and most large orgs) just aren't set up to pay ad hoc amounts to non-suppliers, who aren't charging money.
OSS developers chose licenses that allow the world to use their software for free. They can change the license any time they want. What is needed is a license that is free for non-commercial/educational use and pay if revenue exceeds a certain number.
The problem with “non commercial” exceptions in FOSS licenses is that there’s no good definition of “non commercial”. Interpretations sometimes includes “anything that involves money / payments” even if that’s just distribution costs, someone’s salary, etc. And even if there’s no money, someone could be profiting indirectly.
I work for a non profit that creates FOSS and we were explicitly prevented from using something published as CC-BY-SA-NC (by the author) because our completely “free to access” “not for profit” project was being developed by employees working for money (paid for by a private foundation).
So what’s “non commercial”? Someone at home by themselves? What happens if they amass online followers and then monetize them somehow? They lose the license retroactively then? Was Linux non commercial when it began? (It should have been) Is it still non commercial? (Many would argue it isn’t).
This has nothing to do with OSS developers being compensated, it's about risk management for the consumer.
If you build your business on something that might disappear because someone decides to suddenly stop working on it, it's rational to incentivise them (or others) to not do that.
Not do which? Build a business on OSS, or incentivize OSS maintainers to not disappear?
The latter.
Same is true of all business dependencies, not just OSS ones. It's a large reason why a lot of companies do M&A - it minimizes the risks of not having control over that dependency.
> They can change the license any time they want.
That's a bit facile. For many projects, changing the license from open source to something that's not open source like you are suggesting will cause the project to die. Adoption will drop to indistinguishable from zero and it will lose any hope of achieving critical mass.
This is something Boris Mann has been talking about for a while now. https://bmannconsulting.com/notes/open-source-licensing/
https://bmannconsulting.com/notes/open-source-beyond-licensi...
(I had mentioned to him I wanted the Canadian government to get involved in funding OSS, and that we needed a way for Canadians(and Canadian Corps) to use for free but everyone else would have to pay)
It’s a noble goal but as easily gamed as any other license. In this case there would be nothing stopping me from starting up a new entity and then contracting out that single service for $.01 or whatever. No revenue there, no license fee required. Just add another layer on the onion. It’s similar in difficulty as a wealth tax, just add more indirection.
The Olympics are primarily funded by advertising (and, very recently, streaming fees) and national/regional prestige. Neither sounds like a plausible source of open source funding.
A specific corporate tax would be a great way to do it, IMO. Companies that benefit should pay. How the money gets distributed, and to whom, is also a problem and I don't know how you make any of this cross national borders, especially given national security concerns.
> how you make any of this cross national borders
yeah you can forget about that bit
To me FOSS is very much about governance. If you need a change in an existing piece of FOSS code you hire someone to do this, either in the project itself or, if the project or you doesn’t want that, in a fork.
You can request the change in the existing project in exchange of money, but that to me is asking for trouble.
If companies rely on FOSS, they should fund it.
You've got it backwards. If a FOSS dev needs money, he should stop being FOSS. Don't throw your jacket on a puddle and expect the girl to put out.
Is there much work on valuation — or price discovery, I'm not sure what the right word is — for open-source software? If an entity wanted to fund its open-source supply chain, how would/should it allocate whatever it's willing to spend?
This guy has no conception how government works. The Olympics is a sports franchise like any other, selling a brand name for advertising dollars.
I think this is relevant to the issue Futo is trying to solve Futo license discussion: https://youtu.be/lCjy2CHP7zU
Very sensible, the EU does this to a limited extent.
The EU Horizon grant (€27M or so) to NGI (which was how it went towards OSS) is being stopped from this year: https://fsfe.org/news/2024/news-20240911-01.en.html
At this point free software should be considered like the public highways. You benefit from it even if you don't drive.
From the government's perspective, public highways (in particular the interstate highway system in the U.S.) serve a crucial national security and logistics function. I think this might be the more convincing argument to governments--e.g. you run code in your systems that you do not have control over, and you don't know who is making contributions to it. They could be (and probably are) agents of foreign powers trying to hack you.
But this raises other issues. Let's say you're the US Air Force and you want to sponsor SQLite. I assume because SQLite is everywhere the Air Force runs it in their airplanes, no idea if true. How do you make sure the interests of the developers are aligned with the interests of the Air Force? You probably don't want to accept contributions from foreign nationals, or at least nobody you can't hunt down and prosecute if they do something malicious. You probably also want to vet them with a thorough background check. So they basically have to be employees (or contractors).
If you let your enemies build your highways they'll be hiding antitank mines everywhere. Should we be letting them build our software too? I can't imagine the Air Force, for example, saying "yes". But I could imagine them being quite interested in gaining this kind of control over their infrastructural dependencies.
A specific license might work requiring government users to pay.
Governments sometimes work around limitations by using private third parties that aren’t bound to them. e.g. if they had to pay to use httpd, they would just start paying a commercial hosting company that exists solely to provide http services to that government.
There's a system for that.
It's called proprietary software