This one is something that were brought up a lot by developers including me who are very weary about corporations profiting off of our work for free and this basically put us off from contributing to open source in general.

We get a bunch of dialogues about this such as:

Developers like me: “Many of us who create are concerned about our work being exploited. The possibility of corporations profiting from our open-source contributions without giving back to the community disincentivizes us from participating in such endeavors.”

Open-Source Advocates: “The AGPL exists to mitigate such concerns. It requires derivative works to also be open-source.”

Developers like me: “While I appreciate the intention behind AGPL, there is a loophole - a ‘condom code’ if you will. Even though Linux Kernel prevents such strategies by refusing to merge these changes and that it’s difficult for a singular corporation to force an adoption of a forked version of Linux Kernel, a corporation can fork our much smaller project however and introduce such legal bypass to the copyleft restrictions. This bypass can be justified by them under the guise of extending the software’s capabilities with a plugin interface or an interprocess communication protocol layer, similar to how PostgreSQL allows User Defined Functions. However, I must caution that I’m not well-versed in the legal intricacies.”

When bringing up on non-commercial clause for licensing

Open-Source Advocates: “Disallowing commercial use of your project contradicts the principles of open-source.”

Developers like me: “Well, then perhaps we need a new term, something like ‘Open Code Project’. We can create projects that encourage collaboration and openness while also restricting commercial exploitation.”

So I created this post, because we do need to discuss on a path forward for Open Source in general knowing that corporation can shirk around this restriction and discourage developers like me from participating in open source or open code projects.

Edited to add:

I really want to thank you all for discussing a rather contentious topic and adding your own thoughts to this. I really appreciate everyone’s thoughts into this. I clearly have a lot to do on researches.

  •  TheTrueLinuxDev   ( @TheTrueLinuxDev@beehaw.org ) OPEnglish
    4•1 year ago

    I don’t think it’s that revolutionary, but there are some things that doesn’t exist in current GUI Toolkit worlds.

    The GUI Toolkit I wrote utilize few things:

    1. It runs on Vulkan and the pipeline use custom developed 2D rendering context, not 3D so there is a significant boost in performance and reduction in computation requirements on both GPU and CPU. Vulkan allows GUI to work on just about any devices made in the last decade and can fallback on CPU using Swiftshader.
    2. I established FFI-JSON to simplify binding for any programming languages to bind to my GUI Toolkit as well as extending the GUI Toolkit itself.
    3. Designed for Buffer-based controls - If you want to load up a 2GB text file into a textbox, it offers a way that it would work without freezing up the program.
    4. Accessibility protocol in IPC - Similar to DBus, but documentations are provided to simplify the process of utilizing such protocol and it’s focusing on cross-platform conventions where Dbus might not be available.
    5. Library itself is Cross-platform and written in C Language, enabling the larger cross-section of compatibility
    6. The project is built for IR linkage purposes hence why the code should be open source, because the code is already open by IR anyway. By offering IR linkage by default rather than Object files or dynamically linked library, IR allows everyone to gain immense performance boost through compiler’s features of auto-vectorization, dynamic dispatch converting to static dispatch when possible, internalization pass and more aggressive dead code eliminations. It’s not unusual to see a 80% reduction in code size through this process and see as much as 10x performance improvement compared to dynamically linked libraries.
    7. Conventions for stylizing/theming the GUI through CSS (the goal is to offer a permanent theming capability in GUI even though it can be a challenge to maintain.)

    That on top of my head, I wanted to have a GUI that focuses on making it easier to extend while keeping it conventional for those familiar with Windows Forms on Microsoft Windows and eventually WPF if time allows.

    That the gist of why I wrote my GUI Toolkit and I have spend 4 years working on it, it’s reaching the point that it could be ready for prime time basically.

    The licenses you brought up is interesting and it could work too.