4 ms·

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 ex

by 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]