4 ms·

It violates #1. I see no violation of #6.

mindcrime 6y ago
Upon further review, I believe you are correct.
nybble41 6y ago
#1 is freedom to redistribute the original software, alone or in aggregate. I don't see how it violates that. #6 is freedom from discrimination regarding field of endeavour. Restrictions on commercial use (including exercise of the other freedoms in a commercial context, e.g. sale of modified versions) violate #6, not #1.
- mindcrime 6y ago
  I think that's closer to the way I was reading it at first, but then I realized that #6 refers to use and not distribution. So I think (although, IANAL) that #6 is not about dealing with the commercial sales aspect. I think this is more for the kind of things like "You can use this software for anything except developing military weapons" or that sort of clause that you sometimes see. #1 OTOH deals with "selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources." This would seem to be the clause that would be violated by a "you can't sell this commercially" clause. Although, looking at it, I just realized that somebody could argue that due to the use of the phrase "component of an aggregate software distribution", that this actually isn't violated by a restriction on selling the software alone! I'm pretty sure that's not the way that was ever intended to be interpreted though, and that an aggregate can include as few as 1 components. Otherwise it would be silly, because you could always then in turn create an "aggregate" by adding some arbitrary files of your own.
  - nybble41 6y ago
    #1 only applies to aggregate distributions "containing programs from several different sources". As such it clearly would not apply to distributing a single program. One program by itself is not an aggregate as the term is commonly used and certainly does not contain programs from several different sources. #6 is titled "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavour" and explicitly refers to commercial use as a field of endeavour. The annotated version[1] says: > Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it. Restricting commercial distribution of modified versions would discriminate against commercial users. I argue that the word "use" in this context is referring not only to running the program but to the exercise of any of the freedoms outlined in the Open Source Definition. [1] https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
    - mindcrime 6y ago
      Restricting commercial distribution of modified versions would discriminate against commercial users. That depends on whether or not "use" and "distribute" are seen as two completely different "things", or whether distribution is a subtype of usage. It makes more sense, to me, for it to be the latter - but the actual text of the OSD is a little bit ambiguous on that point. At least to my reading. Still, regardless of how one justifies it, I feel like it's pretty well accepted that a "you can't sell this commercially" clause in a license makes it non-OSD compliant. As it should be.

Upon further review, I believe you are correct.

#1 is freedom to redistribute the original software, alone or in aggregate. I don't see how it violates that. #6 is freedom from discrimination regarding field of endeavour. Restrictions on commercial use (including exercise of the other freedoms in a commercial context, e.g. sale of modified versions) violate #6, not #1.

mindcrime 6y ago
I think that's closer to the way I was reading it at first, but then I realized that #6 refers to use and not distribution. So I think (although, IANAL) that #6 is not about dealing with the commercial sales aspect. I think this is more for the kind of things like "You can use this software for anything except developing military weapons" or that sort of clause that you sometimes see. #1 OTOH deals with "selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources." This would seem to be the clause that would be violated by a "you can't sell this commercially" clause. Although, looking at it, I just realized that somebody could argue that due to the use of the phrase "component of an aggregate software distribution", that this actually isn't violated by a restriction on selling the software alone! I'm pretty sure that's not the way that was ever intended to be interpreted though, and that an aggregate can include as few as 1 components. Otherwise it would be silly, because you could always then in turn create an "aggregate" by adding some arbitrary files of your own.
- nybble41 6y ago
  #1 only applies to aggregate distributions "containing programs from several different sources". As such it clearly would not apply to distributing a single program. One program by itself is not an aggregate as the term is commonly used and certainly does not contain programs from several different sources. #6 is titled "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavour" and explicitly refers to commercial use as a field of endeavour. The annotated version[1] says: > Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it. Restricting commercial distribution of modified versions would discriminate against commercial users. I argue that the word "use" in this context is referring not only to running the program but to the exercise of any of the freedoms outlined in the Open Source Definition. [1] https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
  - mindcrime 6y ago
    Restricting commercial distribution of modified versions would discriminate against commercial users. That depends on whether or not "use" and "distribute" are seen as two completely different "things", or whether distribution is a subtype of usage. It makes more sense, to me, for it to be the latter - but the actual text of the OSD is a little bit ambiguous on that point. At least to my reading. Still, regardless of how one justifies it, I feel like it's pretty well accepted that a "you can't sell this commercially" clause in a license makes it non-OSD compliant. As it should be.