or there’s a clause that says it must be included with incompatibly licensed software, in which case it’s parasitic: someone could still clone my library, replace the dependency that uses your license with some other library that doesn’t - remove the parasite, so to speak. In the latter case, I could still BSD-3 Clause or MIT my library, with a big ol’ warning in the README about your license and the implications.

A clause for being included with incompatibly licensed software would likely be my preference given the other doesn't have more support. My first impression is that having people use it is more important. A goal of the license being to make it overwhelming to escape because it is everywhere.

It does have to be careful to not be exploitable. I know in this post, there's already been mentions of using revenue instead of income. I am aware, and in the past I have seen posts on reddit about actors who were denied pay in the millions because of creative accounting. (and probably also due to them not consulting a lawyer before signing)

Lawyers are probably the best positioned to give advice.

I'm not searching for advice yet, I'm just interested in understanding what others want in a license still. A lawyer will be necessary for being confident that a license is enforceable.

I like the distribution to set group sizes. I dislike royalties directly to a nonprofit, I have doubts about the people who will show up the moment it's managing billions of dollars in royalties.

I love this idea. I feel like a shakeup with licenses is needed. I wonder if you could consult a lawyer then ask some larger open source projects if they would be willing to adopt the license?

Contacting authors of repositories seems really smart. I imagine it could be possible to contact a large percentage of them. I just want to be confident that I have a good license that will be liked before I make an attempt.

edit: Though, looking for feedback from them might also be a really good idea