4 ms·

How exactly is that? There are plenty of licenses that don't allow commercial usage.

cyphar 4y ago
You cannot have a "fully open" license which disallows commercial usage. Both the OSI and FSF definitions of "open source" and "free software" licenses would exclude such a license. Of course you can create a proprietary license which disallows commercial usage, but it won't be "fully open".
- thescriptkiddie 4y ago
  FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage, and software can be made simultaneously available under a separate (paid) commercial license if the authors wish. It's only the OSI that doesn't allow this.
  - dwohnitmok 4y ago
    > FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage Can they? The FSF seems pretty strict on saying that commercial usage cannot be excluded. > “Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. This policy is of fundamental importance—without this, free software could not achieve its aims. From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage No, they can't, use-restricted licenses are non-free, by the FSF definition. > software can be made simultaneously available under a separate (paid) commercial license if the authors wish. This is true, but the Free license cannot be use-restricted, or it ceases to be a Free license (if the copyright owner, owing no obligation to any upstream licensor, does it, they could add the use restriction to a Free license, but it would by that act cease to be a free license; that violates Freedom 0.)
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
pabs3 4y ago
Discriminating against commercial usage is not allowed under the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- ngcc_hk 4y ago
  In fact this is whole point of open source VS free source.
  - justinclift 4y ago
    Doesn't seem accurate? Both Free (of the FSF meaning) and Open Source (of the OSI meaning) software explicitly allow for commercial usage.
    - ngcc_hk 4y ago
      Read history guys. I even did a master thesis cf the two. The open source is against the free source by deliberating allow commerical software. Down vote you may, you cannot change the history. In fact learn seriously about that part, otherwise you miss the whole point of open source. Well, whilst down voted let me repeat the thing - some Vp did not invent internet but he did let go of only education institute used that network. Now it allows commercial activities. The mix is hard. The pure is ease. But without the mix and the complexity dealing with this, you do not have today open word of software and even internet. And mix is hard. (And pure like free source is so pure it is a cult those days.)
      - justinclift 4y ago
        > The open source is against the free source by deliberating allow commerical software. Again, and to put it even more clearly... you're very wrong. Source, from the actual "Free source" people you're talking about: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html > Read history guys. I even did a master thesis cf the two. Interesting. Is your master thesis available for me to take a look at? I'd be interested in seeing how and why you arrived at your current viewpoint.

You cannot have a "fully open" license which disallows commercial usage. Both the OSI and FSF definitions of "open source" and "free software" licenses would exclude such a license. Of course you can create a proprietary license which disallows commercial usage, but it won't be "fully open".

thescriptkiddie 4y ago
FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage, and software can be made simultaneously available under a separate (paid) commercial license if the authors wish. It's only the OSI that doesn't allow this.
- dwohnitmok 4y ago
  > FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage Can they? The FSF seems pretty strict on saying that commercial usage cannot be excluded. > “Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. This policy is of fundamental importance—without this, free software could not achieve its aims. From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage No, they can't, use-restricted licenses are non-free, by the FSF definition. > software can be made simultaneously available under a separate (paid) commercial license if the authors wish. This is true, but the Free license cannot be use-restricted, or it ceases to be a Free license (if the copyright owner, owing no obligation to any upstream licensor, does it, they could add the use restriction to a Free license, but it would by that act cease to be a free license; that violates Freedom 0.)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

pabs3 4y ago

Discriminating against commercial usage is not allowed under the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

ngcc_hk 4y ago
In fact this is whole point of open source VS free source.
- justinclift 4y ago
  Doesn't seem accurate? Both Free (of the FSF meaning) and Open Source (of the OSI meaning) software explicitly allow for commercial usage.
  - ngcc_hk 4y ago
    Read history guys. I even did a master thesis cf the two. The open source is against the free source by deliberating allow commerical software. Down vote you may, you cannot change the history. In fact learn seriously about that part, otherwise you miss the whole point of open source. Well, whilst down voted let me repeat the thing - some Vp did not invent internet but he did let go of only education institute used that network. Now it allows commercial activities. The mix is hard. The pure is ease. But without the mix and the complexity dealing with this, you do not have today open word of software and even internet. And mix is hard. (And pure like free source is so pure it is a cult those days.)
    - justinclift 4y ago
      > The open source is against the free source by deliberating allow commerical software. Again, and to put it even more clearly... you're very wrong. Source, from the actual "Free source" people you're talking about: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html > Read history guys. I even did a master thesis cf the two. Interesting. Is your master thesis available for me to take a look at? I'd be interested in seeing how and why you arrived at your current viewpoint.