when contributing code, the contributor can specify a strike price. if the upstream chooses to integrate it, then they're responsible for forwarding appropriate payment. this is one of the key motivations, ie to facilitate two developers to collaborate without prior discussions of financial details
and by the same token, the downstream is able to distribute directly (with or without source), and forward payment to the upstream, ie it's symmetric
if something like this license became widely used, it would make sense to adopt or build infrastructure to facilitate distribution of payments (perhaps licensezero ?)
So coding is a work for hire rather than a royalty stream that seems like a good deal for the company to get lots of cheap labor. This is what’s funny is that I’d rather work for free as long as no one is getting exploited than get a pittance and then let someone profit from my work.
I guess I just like abstractions.
Good luck with your attempt, I think it’s just as likely to be successful as other commercial licenses. I think it’s cool you’ve at least thought of some way to get token payments to external devs.
it's a royalty stream (per core, per year), not a work for hire. the upstream is required to collect that additional price for every license sold and transfer it to the contributor
whether that was a pittance or significant would depend on the price you chose and the popularity of the project
thank you (and the other commenters as well) for taking the time to look at the license and have this conversation with me. it's now obvious to me that several things need to be clarified - people still may not like the license, but at least then they'd be not liking it for the right reasons
and by the same token, the downstream is able to distribute directly (with or without source), and forward payment to the upstream, ie it's symmetric
if something like this license became widely used, it would make sense to adopt or build infrastructure to facilitate distribution of payments (perhaps licensezero ?)