FOSS licensing has recently occupied my thoughts a lot. It helped me refine my thoughts to date, in that I think a new kind of FOSS license that's neither strictly free nor open is required.
But the exact nature of what's required is still a little unclear to me, so I could use the community's help here.
I've written something about it here as a starting point: https://reset.substack.com/p/towards-communal-licensing
I hope comments will include all the issues I've raised here (and more!).
@jens trying to think of how contribution to a code base may keep track of who deserves to be paid I suspect it may actually be a good case for block chain, although a non traditional one where blocks are mined simply by having enough previous contributors signing the contribution.
This block chain would provide the history of merges (just the valid hashes) to the release branch but otherwise it would be a normal git repo.
@LovesTha You should be able to get all that info from git itself.
But yes - this is also one of the main reasons *outside of this discussion* why squash merges are a bad idea, they remove provenance tracking. Just don't use them, and you have the info you need easily accessible. Use them, and things become muddier.
A private instance for the Finkhäuser family.