You’re using “open source” as defined by OSI. Just wanted to note that open source historically arose in protest to the corporate walled gardens that dominated the software ecosystem, rather than a movement to give companies a large eco-system of free-to-use software for profit. It was about individuals having access. But I am not going to argue that what I am proposing is open source. I will accept that open source as a term has already been coopted to serve corporations. forces you to share the code, even when it is not deployed It would only apply to for-profit entities. It would be extremely difficult to enforce on an individual level anyways, and it would disagree with the spirit here. forces you to pay a tithe to the developer. I called that profit sharing earlier, but you can call it that too, sure.