> - if your company makes >X revenue a year, give us some of it.
This would just lead to Hollywood-accounting, where a AWS-Tools subsidiary does all the software at a loss, and AWS-Cloud is just a user etc.
This would just lead to Hollywood-accounting, where a AWS-Tools subsidiary does all the software at a loss, and AWS-Cloud is just a user etc.
From that perspective they will never be an independent third party, and therefore you can specify that in a contract. So I don't see a theoretical problem to this, just a practical one of specifying this both precisely enough to be enforceable, and general enough to cover all real cases.
In Hollywood’s case, it’s pretty clear when movies are making money (same with games to a large degree), but I don’t know if there’s a way for “tool” companies to leverage that.
Unreal, though, is in a different negotiating position with the game publishers than, say, an open-source software with a new pay-us-if-you-make-money clause. Its the distinction between source-available (like Unreal Engine) and open-source which the article tries to make?
Timescale's new license is an interesting move in this direction.