I would draw the line at shareholders.

You may use my software free of charge if you are a student, hobbyist, hobbyist with income, side hustler, sole proprietorship, LLC, S-Corp, non-profit, partnership, or other owner-operator type business.

Corporations with investors or shareholders will pay recurring licensing fees. Your shareholders may not profit from my work unless I profit from it more than they do. If you can afford a three inch thick mahogany conference table you can afford to pay for your software.

I think it kicks in when you distribute. For example, let's say I have a fork of some GPL software and I'm maintaining it for myself. I don't need to share the changes if I'm the only one using it.

The point is that people using a software should be able to read and modify (and share) the source when they want to.

IANAL and all that good stuff

If it's only internal then technically the internal users should have access to the source code. Only the people who receive the software get the rights and freedoms of the GPL, no one else.

AGPL? Google has a ban on all AGPL software. Sounds like if you write AGPL software, corporations won't steal it.

Code licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) MUST NOT be used at Google.

The license places restrictions on software used over a network which are extremely difficult for Google to comply with. Using AGPL software requires that anything it links to must also be licensed under the AGPL. Even if you think you aren’t linking to anything important, it still presents a huge risk to Google because of how integrated much of our code is. The risks heavily outweigh the benefits.

Any FLOSS license that makes a corporation shit its pants like this is good enough to start from IMO.

https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy

I doubt it. It is basically equivalent to buying a proprietary software license for 1% of a revenue. I doubt any large business would be willing to spend that much on a single piece of software. And it would always be only one piece of software at a time.

I've looked into this very briefly before and I think part of the reason is that tons of things we wouldn't necessarily call commercial usage are considered commercial usage. This was in relation to favoring the non non-commercial usage Creative Commons licenses though. (The ones they call free culture licenses.)

Not really. The problem with FOSS licensing is that it was too altruistic, with the belief that if enough users and corporations depended on the code, the community would collectively do the work necessary to maintain the project. Instead, capitalism chose to exploit FOSS as free labor most of the time, without any reciprocal investment. They raise an enormous amount of issues, and consume a large amount of FOSS developer time, without paying their own staff to fix the bugs they need resolved — in the software their products depend on. At that point the FOSS developer is no longer a FOSS developer, and instead is the unpaid slave labor of a corporation. Sure, FOSS devs could just ignore external inputs, but that's not easy to do when you've invested years of your life in a project. Exploiting kindness may be legal, but it should never be justified or tolerated.

Sure, FOSS licenses legally permit that kind of use, but just because homeless shelters allow anyone to eat their food, and sleep in their beds, that doesn't make the rich man who exploits that charity ethically or morally justified. The rich man who exploits that charity (i.e. free labor), and offers nothing in return, is a scummy dog cunt; there are no two ways about it. The presence of lecherous parasites can destroy the entire charity; they can mean the difference between sustainability and burnout.

FOSS should always be free for all personal, free, and non profit use, but once someone in the chain starts depending on FOSS to generate income and profit, some of that profit should always be reinvested in those dependencies. That's what FOSS is now learning; to reject the exploitation and greed of lecherous parasites.

The free software as a passion project idea became untenable long ago. It works for UNIX style utilities where the project stays small and changes can be managed by one person but breaks down on large projects.

As a user, try to get a feature added or bugfix merged. Its a weeks or sometimes months/years long back and forth trying to get the bikeshedding correct.

As a maintainer, spend time reading and responding to bug reports which are all unrelated to the project. Deal with a few pull requests that don't quite fit the project, but might with more polish. Take a month off and wait for the inevitable "is this being maintained?" Issues reports.

I contribute back changes because I want those features but don't want to maintain a longterm fork of the project. When they're rejected or ignored its demoralizing. I can tell myself "This is the way of open source" but sometimes I just search for another project that better fits my needs rather than trying to work on the one I submitted changes to.

That is the happy path. The sad path of this is how many people look at the aforementioned problems and never bother to submit a pull request because it's too much trouble? Git removed most of the technical friction of contributing, but there is still huge social friction.

Long story short: the man pages maintainer deserves something for all the "work" part of maintaining. He can continue to not be paid for the passion part.