3 ms·
That's the point, it violates the open source definition. See https://opensource.org/definition https://opensource.org/definition : "6. No Discrimination Agai
by chungy 9y ago
That's the point, it violates the open source definition.
See https://opensource.org/definition https://opensource.org/definition :
"6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."
"Non-commercial" clauses by definition make something not open source.
- ghostly_s 9y agoYour parent asked about encumbrances, not definitions. What is the encumbrance here beyond requiring application of different terminology?
- rspeer 9y agoYou can't release your code in a way that it can be used as a dependency, except by requiring your downstream users to use the License Zero payment platform. That's an encumbrance. You also can't distribute it along with GPL code, at all, whereas combining BSD and GPL code is totally fine (the result is GPL).
- colejohnson66 9y agoHow does Qt get around that?
- mappu 9y agoQt can be used commercially under the terms of the LGPL at no cost. When used appropriately (i.e. dynamic linking to unmodified Qt, or, offering source for a modified dynamically-linked Qt), the commercial company is not forced to open source anything. Qt has an optional alternative license with a cost attached, that gives you (A) a support contract, and (B) additional rights (static linking without invoking GPL virality, private modifications, ...).
- cyphar 9y agoThey also violate freedom #0 making them proprietary.