Okay, so how do you share the profits? By lines of code? Impact of the contribution? Haggling? PPP (Price per patch)?
And, moreover:
* What rights do I own in the parts that I receive royalties for? You say, I still own the rights. But you also say that I am restricted from creating profit with the software I contribute to. Why would I do that? Also, most of the code I contribute will most likely not be usable outside of the project.
* What do you do if the holder of a piece of code goes missing? (Not an uncommon problem, but it gets harder if money is involved)
* What happens if my piece of code is removed from the software, do the royalties fade?
* What happens if the body caring for all such things goes defunct? (Not unlikely, considering its a company)
* How do you foster a group of people that actually wants to take part in such a scheme?
Also, my point was that its is fundamentally non-"open". You can have any weird kind of profit scheme with source disclosure, but that doesn't make it open source.
As I said before: i see you don't want to make the jump of letting go of the (perceived) money, which I am fine with. But please don't use the word 'open' for that.
Comments
Okay, so how do you share the profits? By lines of code? Impact of the contribution? Haggling? PPP (Price per patch)?
And, moreover: * What rights do I own in the parts that I receive royalties for? You say, I still own the rights. But you also say that I am restricted from creating profit with the software I contribute to. Why would I do that? Also, most of the code I contribute will most likely not be usable outside of the project. * What do you do if the holder of a piece of code goes missing? (Not an uncommon problem, but it gets harder if money is involved) * What happens if my piece of code is removed from the software, do the royalties fade? * What happens if the body caring for all such things goes defunct? (Not unlikely, considering its a company) * How do you foster a group of people that actually wants to take part in such a scheme?
Also, my point was that its is fundamentally non-"open". You can have any weird kind of profit scheme with source disclosure, but that doesn't make it open source.
As I said before: i see you don't want to make the jump of letting go of the (perceived) money, which I am fine with. But please don't use the word 'open' for that.