3 ms·
> Check out License Zero. It helps open source software stay free for use and modification for non-commercial purposes, while commercial users can be required t
by Flimm 9y ago
> Check out License Zero. It helps open source software stay free for use and modification for non-commercial purposes, while commercial users can be required to pay after a trial period.
I would delete the words "open source" from this sentence. License Zero is not an open source license, as open source licenses cannot discriminate against commercial uses. See the Open Source Definition by the OSI.
- jashkenas 9y agoThanks for the correction. I've made the change in the FAQ to not describe License Zero as an open source license. On its own website, it's very careful not to.
- ZenoArrow 9y agoOpen source or not, thank you for bringing it to my attention, I can see some potential benefits of Licence Zero, especially for larger projects where funding is more important. The Lil licence looks promising too.
- kemitchell 9y agoThank you both for your interest! For completeness: The original License Zero Public License, now dubbed the License Zero Noncommercial Public License (L0-NC), is admittedly _not_ an Open Source license per OSI's definition. There is now also a draft, alternative public license for L0 projects, The License Zero Reciprocal Public License (L0-R). It's a hair-trigger copyleft-style license, built in much the same way, from a BSD-2-Clause base: https://github.com/licensezero/licensezero-reciprocal-public-license/blob/master/LICENSE.mustache https://github.com/licensezero/licensezero-reciprocal-public... More here: https://medium.com/licensezero/a-hacker-public-license-d28053038b45 https://medium.com/licensezero/a-hacker-public-license-d2805... I believe L0-R _is_ an Open Source license, and have submitted to OSI for approval. I also believe it will be as, if not more effective than L0-NC in driving industrial users to purchase private licenses.