I'm looking for a software license, wrapper, or amendment that distinguishes between users of open-source and closed-source operating systems, aiming to balance the efforts of open-source users and discourage reliance on closed-source systems backed by BigTech companies. Open-source users often invest significant time and effort in learning and setting up their systems, contributing to the overall cause of promoting open-source adoption. Meanwhile, closed-source systems pose security and privacy risks, with many users remaining unaware of these issues.

The concept I'm interested in focuses on users running closed-source operating systems but does not impede anyone from accessing the project for free if they are willing to put in the effort of installing an open-source OS, dual booting, or running an open OS in a VM. This approach encourages users to improve their personal situation in terms of security, privacy, and self-sovereignty by exposing them to the concepts and incentivising them to dabble in OSS.

While I believe this idea aligns with the principles of GNU, I acknowledge its incompatibility with copyleft licenses.

One challenge with implementing this concept is handling the receipt and distribution of payments. I'm considering using a privacy-respecting cryptocurrency, like Monero, for payment and upstream distribution. As part of the license, we could create a package for various languages that aids in receiving the cryptocurrency and automatically passing it upstream, minimizing administrative work for participants once everything is set up. The module could also provide an instruction guide for the end-users on how to set up a wallet and purchase or mine the cryptocurrency.

However, as far as I know, Monero does not support smart contracts, which means that each project would have to manually push the 50% upstream. Are there any other privacy-respecting cryptocurrencies that could automate this kind of functionality?

Here's a summary of the concept:

  1. Users running the software on open-source operating systems can use it without any fees, acknowledging their time investment in learning and setting up these systems.
  2. Users running the software on closed-source operating systems are subject to a monthly fee after a trial period.
  3. 50% of the collected fees are shared with the creators of open-source software packages used by the licensed project.
  4. Payment to the creators of the packages used is dependent on them sharing 50% of their income from this source with the packages they use, creating a fractal-like distribution of income to fairly compensate all contributors.

I'm wondering if there is an existing license or mechanism (such as a wrapper or amendment) that already incorporates these ideas and acknowledges the incompatibility with copyleft licenses. If you know of any, please share pointers or resources that can help me understand the details and implications of using such a solution.

If nothing like this exists, I would also appreciate hearing your thoughts on the feasibility of implementing this concept, potential challenges, compatibility issues, and suggestions for splitting the income fairly among the packages used.

Thank you for your help

  • 4
    I’m voting to close this question because it is off topic, as it asks for a license that is not free. See opensource.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic May 10 at 14:53
  • My apologies if I misunderstood the point of this stack exchange. Would you mind pointing me to a forum where I can ask question about open source software? @Martin_in_AUT
    – rs404
    May 10 at 19:41
  • I do not think you need another forum, I think you need a lawyer to draft license language for you which meets your requirements. May 11 at 5:43
  • Personally, I feel this outline could do with some work, and could benefit from communicty feedback, but I am flattered that you belive my first attempt is of high enough quality to proceed with drawing up legal documents. Thank you , much appreicated - @Martin_in_AUT
    – rs404
    May 11 at 14:22