> Why don't our overworked, underpaid open-source developers license their software with something to the effect of "If you make more than $1,000,000, pay me.
Because that isn't open source, and is arguably not enforceable anyway.
How do you define "make $1M"? There are mega corporations with billions in revenue that somehow have a negative tax bill each year, so clearly taxable income isn't a reliable indicator.
Conversely a non profit organisation may have several million in donations/income but spend all of it on their charitable causes.
So clearly net revenue isn't a reliable indicator either.
If you don't want to release software under a licence without monetary terms, then don't. No one is forcing you to do that.
I'm trying to imagine something other than GPL. The fact that the GPL license is respected in the vast majority of cases, without a precedent being necessary is very exciting.
> Why don't our overworked, underpaid open-source developers license their software with something to the effect of "If you make more than $1,000,000, pay me.
Because that isn't open source, and is arguably not enforceable anyway.
How do you define "make $1M"? There are mega corporations with billions in revenue that somehow have a negative tax bill each year, so clearly taxable income isn't a reliable indicator.
Conversely a non profit organisation may have several million in donations/income but spend all of it on their charitable causes.
So clearly net revenue isn't a reliable indicator either.
If you don't want to release software under a licence without monetary terms, then don't. No one is forcing you to do that.
> We don't know if GPL works in court.
If lacking precedent is your main concern, there are no software licenses that are likely to fill your criterion.
I'm trying to imagine something other than GPL. The fact that the GPL license is respected in the vast majority of cases, without a precedent being necessary is very exciting.