Cyclohexane

Another benefit you miss is isolation

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.

isn’t that similar to gpl?

That is correct. GPL has the same problem.

why should the company’s profit go to a developer they don’t employ?

I dont agree with the idea that paying non-employees is a foreign concept. Many companies pay, for example, Adobe for Adobe suite software, or Google for Google suite software, despite not hiring them as employees. They pay rent to property owners despite not hiring them as employees. The idea that only employees must be paid is unfounded.

Now, to answer “why should they pay them”, well, in exchange for their labor.

I haven’t looked into it, but I will. My only worry is that it will discourage many people from it due to political biases against the naming.

Not good enough. Companies are still allowed to use this software freely, make massive profits without anything going to the developer. It is truly free labor.

They are even allowed to modify it, even make derivative work, without open sourcing it, as long as they don’t distribute said derivative work.