inherently not possible as then it would not be "open" to begin with.
I understand the idea, it's not truly open in that case, but so long as the ability to build new things on it and prosper from it is preserved im alright.
The key is that it's not doing something like trying to restrict you from using it in a certain way, only requiring you give a fair share of profits.
This was, fun fact, the original purpose of patents. They weren't designed to keep things closed and owned by individuals, they were designed to allow people to freely share and make a profit so that ideas could be built on by each other. The patent system is turned into this corrupted terrible mess where things are almost never shared through licensing or payment, and it's just a way to build monopolistic enterprises nowadays.
An open source system that allows for this sort of payment would also allow for many many more things to be open when currently the bad actors who will build and take that work and just never pay you back for it.
There are people who do not consider that "open".
See the whole debacle about what exactly constitutes "open source"
Who? Even Richard Stallman is okay with what they do: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions
In any case the software world has changed drastically since that article has been published.
"Open source" is defined by the Open Source definition according to the OSI [1]. In saying that, I realize that every couple of years somebody tries to claim that their understanding of the term "open source" should trump the one the community has settled on. I personally am not ready to acquiesce to this semantic drift, at least, not yet.
