3 ms·

I'm not sure Commons Clause even meets those informal requirements. You can't run Commons Clause software if you're receiving payment for doing so. You can't r

I'm not sure Commons Clause even meets those informal requirements. You can't run Commons Clause software if you're receiving payment for doing so. You can't redistribute Commons Clause software verbatim if you're receiving payment for doing so. (As written, it even appears to prohibit selling a CD of the software for the cost of the blank CD, a service that's otherwise widely accepted as a useful community contribution.) Because the Commons Clause restricts the situations in which you can run and redistribute the software, software licensed under it isn't free software.

amenod 7y ago
That's a good point - but of course I wasn't arguing that Commons Clause is "free software" (as defined by OSI/FSF). I do however believe that it solves a true problem that free software evangelists keep pretending doesn't exist, and it does so in a way which leaves user with much more freedoms than other proprietary licenses. Is it free software? No. Does it allow many more freedoms than closed source? Hell yes. Is that enough? We'll see.