5 ms·

You can sell the compiled artifacts as well. OSS doesn’t mean free (as in beer) either. If you have a license that says that you must pay money to operate it co

by sargun 7y ago

You can sell the compiled artifacts as well. OSS doesn’t mean free (as in beer) either. If you have a license that says that you must pay money to operate it commercially, that’s another way to make money from OSS.

justinjlynn 7y ago
> If you have a license that says that you must pay money to operate it commercially, that’s another way to make money from OSS. No. Absolutely not. Licences which add restrictions based on field of endeavour are not Open Source licences. Period. https://opensource.org/docs/osd https://opensource.org/docs/osd Point 6. Period. > You can sell the compiled artifacts as well. Yes, of course you can sell the service of providing compiled binaries. Everyone will be annoyed if you charge for the builds of your software - but that's your prerogative. Someone else will just provide a free unofficial build (See CentOS, etc) if it's useful. Suit yourself. shrug
- throwaway35784 7y ago
  We should discriminate against evil. Period.
  - justinjlynn 7y ago
    Of course you shouldn't contribute to evil as you see it. Contributing to that against which you fight is stupid. The problem with applying that to licences is that they have to apply everywhere, to everyone, equally. Who defines what evil is? You? Me? The person with the most power? The person with the least? How do you measure that? Is there even an absolute definition of evil? I seriously doubt such a definition exists. I'd go so far as to say I hope one doesn't - thinking of the implications. I wish you the best of luck - because that's all it'll be; in terms of denying evil access to your software. Of course, your licence choice matters because we all know that evil follows all the rules - especially those which don't suit its purposes. /s
    - throwaway35784 7y ago
      That's why my license choice is closed source.
      - justinjlynn 7y ago
        Suit yourself - though, if I'm being honest, I'm wondering why you're even in this thread.
        throwaway35784 7y ago
        I'm keeping an open mind. You haven't changed it. I did get more evidence that open sourcing software doesn't pay the bills. I don't know why you're so angry about that. Calling people names. Implying people don't even have a right to speak on a topic. Something is emotionally driving you. You're deeply resentful.
        justinjlynn 7y ago
        The only thing I'm resenting at the moment is people like you wasting my time with responses specifically designed to provoke flame posting. You still haven't answered my question, and I'm not going to bother responding until you do - just why is it that are you in this thread?
EvanAnderson 7y ago
Discrimination against fields of endeavor (like commercial use) in the license means it's not Open Source software anymore.

by sargun 7y ago

justinjlynn 7y ago

> If you have a license that says that you must pay money to operate it commercially, that’s another way to make money from OSS. No. Absolutely not. Licences which add restrictions based on field of endeavour are not Open Source licences. Period. https://opensource.org/docs/osd https://opensource.org/docs/osd Point 6. Period. > You can sell the compiled artifacts as well. Yes, of course you can sell the service of providing compiled binaries. Everyone will be annoyed if you charge for the builds of your software - but that's your prerogative. Someone else will just provide a free unofficial build (See CentOS, etc) if it's useful. Suit yourself. shrug

throwaway35784 7y ago
We should discriminate against evil. Period.
- justinjlynn 7y ago
  Of course you shouldn't contribute to evil as you see it. Contributing to that against which you fight is stupid. The problem with applying that to licences is that they have to apply everywhere, to everyone, equally. Who defines what evil is? You? Me? The person with the most power? The person with the least? How do you measure that? Is there even an absolute definition of evil? I seriously doubt such a definition exists. I'd go so far as to say I hope one doesn't - thinking of the implications. I wish you the best of luck - because that's all it'll be; in terms of denying evil access to your software. Of course, your licence choice matters because we all know that evil follows all the rules - especially those which don't suit its purposes. /s
  - throwaway35784 7y ago
    That's why my license choice is closed source.
    - justinjlynn 7y ago
      Suit yourself - though, if I'm being honest, I'm wondering why you're even in this thread.
      - throwaway35784 7y ago
        I'm keeping an open mind. You haven't changed it. I did get more evidence that open sourcing software doesn't pay the bills. I don't know why you're so angry about that. Calling people names. Implying people don't even have a right to speak on a topic. Something is emotionally driving you. You're deeply resentful.
        justinjlynn 7y ago
        The only thing I'm resenting at the moment is people like you wasting my time with responses specifically designed to provoke flame posting. You still haven't answered my question, and I'm not going to bother responding until you do - just why is it that are you in this thread?

EvanAnderson 7y ago

Discrimination against fields of endeavor (like commercial use) in the license means it's not Open Source software anymore.