I somewhat wonder about trying to release those games on FOSS licenses (still with asking for “paying” for them to support the creators), that would be “purer” from anarchist perspective than using proprietary license but this is not something I have thought about that much.
A difficulty with FOSS licensing is that there are various ways to avoid its terms. If we consider the GPL for example, one is only required to redistribute source if they distribute the software. A company could potentially run the software on their own servers and instead provide a streaming service so that the users don't every explicitly receive the software. Even the AGPL doesn't help with this, which is why various other non-FOSS, but "source available" licenses have appeared in recent years such as the SSPL[1] from MongoDB, based of the AGPL.
It might be reasonable to use a dual-licensing model of SSPL/Proprietary, and have any third-party contributors sign a CLA to allow your enterprise to relicense their contributions. Even though the SSPL has received a lot of criticism and been called a "fauxpen-source" license, I think its terms are completely reasonable. To the little-man who wants to run and modify the software for their own personal use, there's virtually no difference from the AGPL. The stricter terms only impact cloud providers who want to profit from providing the software without giving anything back.
Another consideration is whether you only make the code FOSS, but keep the game assets proprietary. This would allow people to make similar/derivative games from your code without explicitly cloning yours. You could also release some assets under CC-BY-SA to allow third-party creations around your brand without giving all of it away. Perhaps the best example is the Touhou franchise[2], where the games are still proprietary but there are many derivative works around the franchise. You could also release assets under CC-BY-NC-ND or CC-BY-NC-SA
I could research some more legalistic side of cooperative but it would be nice certainly to have someone who has some expertise here.
I'm no expert, but have you considered establishing something like a CIC[3] (UK Community Interest Company) or L3C[4] (US Low-profit LLC)? These approaches can take advantage of the legal system to prevent a company's assets being taken over by for-profit enterprises. In a CIC for example, if the company is wound up, the company's assets can only be transferred to another "asset-locked body", which includes other CICs or non-profits, but not for-profit companies. A CIC can only sell its assets to a for-profit if the sale is for the benefit of the community, and must have consent from the regulator.
A CIC must have a primary motive besides profit, but profit as a secondary motive is OK, which makes them distinct from charities. A CIC can raise capital like a limited company and pay dividends to shareholders - but there's not a duty to maximize shareholder profit because it is not the primary goal of the company.
This must all be declared in a constitution which is submitted to the regulator when establishing the company. You can use this constitution to outline what is expected of all members, including decision making processes, how disagreements are to be handled, and how the company's excess-profit is to be used for the benefit of the community.
It's not a completely flat structure, but IMO, some form of leadership is necessary to direct the community towards a common goal and mediate disputes. The company constitution could be crafted to prevent a few bad apples from poisoning the well. It can place limitations on how long each member can serve as a director, and can require directors be selected from the internal pool of members.
Comments
A difficulty with FOSS licensing is that there are various ways to avoid its terms. If we consider the GPL for example, one is only required to redistribute source if they distribute the software. A company could potentially run the software on their own servers and instead provide a streaming service so that the users don't every explicitly receive the software. Even the AGPL doesn't help with this, which is why various other non-FOSS, but "source available" licenses have appeared in recent years such as the SSPL[1] from MongoDB, based of the AGPL.
It might be reasonable to use a dual-licensing model of SSPL/Proprietary, and have any third-party contributors sign a CLA to allow your enterprise to relicense their contributions. Even though the SSPL has received a lot of criticism and been called a "fauxpen-source" license, I think its terms are completely reasonable. To the little-man who wants to run and modify the software for their own personal use, there's virtually no difference from the AGPL. The stricter terms only impact cloud providers who want to profit from providing the software without giving anything back.
Another consideration is whether you only make the code FOSS, but keep the game assets proprietary. This would allow people to make similar/derivative games from your code without explicitly cloning yours. You could also release some assets under CC-BY-SA to allow third-party creations around your brand without giving all of it away. Perhaps the best example is the Touhou franchise[2], where the games are still proprietary but there are many derivative works around the franchise. You could also release assets under CC-BY-NC-ND or CC-BY-NC-SA
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License
[2]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touhou_Project#Reception_and_f...
I'm no expert, but have you considered establishing something like a CIC[3] (UK Community Interest Company) or L3C[4] (US Low-profit LLC)? These approaches can take advantage of the legal system to prevent a company's assets being taken over by for-profit enterprises. In a CIC for example, if the company is wound up, the company's assets can only be transferred to another "asset-locked body", which includes other CICs or non-profits, but not for-profit companies. A CIC can only sell its assets to a for-profit if the sale is for the benefit of the community, and must have consent from the regulator.
A CIC must have a primary motive besides profit, but profit as a secondary motive is OK, which makes them distinct from charities. A CIC can raise capital like a limited company and pay dividends to shareholders - but there's not a duty to maximize shareholder profit because it is not the primary goal of the company.
This must all be declared in a constitution which is submitted to the regulator when establishing the company. You can use this constitution to outline what is expected of all members, including decision making processes, how disagreements are to be handled, and how the company's excess-profit is to be used for the benefit of the community.
It's not a completely flat structure, but IMO, some form of leadership is necessary to direct the community towards a common goal and mediate disputes. The company constitution could be crafted to prevent a few bad apples from poisoning the well. It can place limitations on how long each member can serve as a director, and can require directors be selected from the internal pool of members.
[3]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_interest_company
[4]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-profit_limited_liability_c...