4 ms·
> Excluding commercial use is not helping the growth of OSS, it is falsely claiming to be OSS. Is anything less than BSD or MIT license not open source then? I
by hartator 6y ago
> Excluding commercial use is not helping the growth of OSS, it is falsely claiming to be OSS.
Is anything less than BSD or MIT license not open source then? I am all for it, but you are publishing some of your work under GNU which mean I can't use in one of my projects without publishing the source code under GNU. Why these restrictions are acceptable but not non-commercialisation?
- dwheeler 6y agoGPL is well-known to be an open source software license. Many commercial organizations depend on it.
- hartator 6y ago> If you use components that are licensed under GPLv3, then you are required to license the complete application the contains the GPL components under the GPL as well. It seems to be more restrictive to me than the OP's license.