5 ms·

Are there any examples of popular OSS projects using a non-commercial-only license?

rectang 4y ago
No, because excluding commercial users is a field-of-use restriction, and you're not FOSS if you only offer a license which imposes a field-of-use restriction. Which is fine! Just don't call it FOSS.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Furthermore, it's really hard to define what non-commercial actually means. Creative Commons spent something like a decade trying to scope a reasonable definition and eventually ended up essentially punting. With a few exceptions like (arguably) secondary public education use, pretty much any non-trivial use has some commercial component.
- Grimburger 4y ago
  > you're not FOSS > don't call it FOSS The grandparent comment clearly said OSS.
  - detaro 4y ago
    Their statement is just as true if you insert "OSS" instead of "FOSS".
    - Grimburger 4y ago
      Playing the semantic game over what is or isn't "open source" is very draining sorry. If I can look at it, that's open source software to me, you can define that phrase however you want and I'm happy with that too :)
      - account42 4y ago
        There is no semantic game, open source software is a term of art with a much more specific meaning than the source being available. If you find this draining then you can simply stop trying to misappropriate the term.
djur 4y ago
By definition there aren't any, but MAME used to be distributed under such a license. I think Debian in particular has been pretty successful at exerting pressure to either relicense or replace software with non-commercial restrictions.
- runfaster2000 4y ago
  Do you have an example of that? That is really interesting.
ekidd 4y ago
Technically, both the original Open Source Definition https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd and the older Free Software Definition https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en#translations https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en#translations both explicitly require the ability to use programs in a commercial context. In the case of the Free Software Definition, this makes perfect sense: the FSF wants people to have certain freedoms at work, as well as freedom in their personal lives. The other challenge is that turning an open source project into a proprietary project isn't as simple as changing the license and asking for money. You need to build an entire business from scratch, and learn to close sales somehow (or sell to consumers). This will take up at least half your time.
ddevault 4y ago
Non-commercial OSS projects is a contradiction in terms.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  The source can still be open even if you aren’t permitted to run it for commerce.
  - dist1ll 4y ago
    That's referred to as "source-available" to distinguish it from free/libre software.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    No it can't. You're thinking of "visible source" or "source available".
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      This an early 'open source' - it did not allow for free commercial use! http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html > an open source code model ... Individuals can use OpenDOS source for personal use at no cost. Individuals and organizations desiring to commercially redistribute Caldera OpenDOS must acquire a license with an associated small fee.
    - xyzzy_plugh 4y ago
      I'm sympathetic but this is an uphill battle unworthy of fighting, in my opinion. Canonicalization of "open source" (versus "OSI Approved Open Source") is overreach of a an organization suffering from declining relevance. OSI is not helping to move the needle on licensing, and has effectively caused the industry to become frozen in time with the same stagnating licenses we had 10-15+ years ago. There's no innovation here, and I'm just tired of this. Instead we have demonic machinations like the BSL growing in relevance because there's no better alternative. I'm just so sick of it. If you asked any reasonable person what the opposite of "closed source" is, you're going to get a uniform answer from the vast majority or respondents, and a small, irritating answer from a small, increasingly irrelevant group group of folks. I understand the distinction that "source available" aspires to achieve, but it's such an unappetizing term of art that you may as well call it "I can't believe it's not open source". Champagne, Chocolate, Open Source... they're all noble but doomed uphill battles in colloquialism. Everyone knows what you mean. If you want to be correct, be truly pedantic, instead of shifting the ambiguity: French Champagne, Belgian Chocolate, OSI Approved License. Don't get me wrong, I'm a diehard FOSS supporter, I sponsor and contribute, I encourage my employers to be good global citizens with respect to FOSS and have complied with licenses by releasing modifications under appropriate licenses. I even pay Drew DeVault money. But ultimately he and everyone else arguing to enshrine the term "open source" will couple the fate of their opinions to that of the OSI and at best, it will all be a footnote in the pages of history. Will we be using the same OSI approved licenses in 10, 50, 100, 1000 years? Will the OSI permit term "open source" to be used to refer to something other than the current licenses?
nrook 4y ago
The AGPL is not a non-commercial license, but it essentially functions as one, as most companies aren't willing to comply with it. There are some projects that make their code available under the AGPL, and also let users pay to get access under a different license. Grafana is an example.
- 1letterunixname 4y ago
  - PetitSasquatch 4y ago
    This is how it appears to me also. I suspect by 'free', GNU licenses aren't really referring to user-freedom more so source-code-freedom. It all depends on the developer's objectives, no doubt.
    - cannam 4y ago
      Source-code freedom is user freedom. It's effectively a sort of guarantee. The additional freedom that BSD licences provide is freedom for developers to do what they like, not anything to do with users. (The biggest practical advantage of a BSD licence for most developers is that if you use one when publishing your code while you work for a company, you yourself will still be able to reuse that code after you leave.)
      - bentley 4y ago
        Developers are users.
        account42 4y ago
        Which is why it makes sense for developers to license their code under licenses that guarantee user freedoms - so that they themselves can benefit.
  - rpdillon 4y ago
janober 4y ago
We at n8n (https://n8n.io/ https://n8n.io/) have something similar (but not identical) with our Sustainable Use License. Here the blog-post where we talk about it some more: https://blog.n8n.io/announcing-new-sustainable-use-license/ https://blog.n8n.io/announcing-new-sustainable-use-license/
- bornfreddy 4y ago
  Sounds like an interesting licence, good luck!
bbanyc 4y ago
Ghostscript used to have the most recent version under a non-commercial license (AFPL) and older versions relicensed to GPL, before they switched to AGPL only.
josephcsible 4y ago
By definition, there can be no such projects. One of the requirements for a license to be called Open Source is that it does allow commercial use.

No, because excluding commercial users is a field-of-use restriction, and you're not FOSS if you only offer a license which imposes a field-of-use restriction. Which is fine! Just don't call it FOSS.

ghaff 4y ago
Furthermore, it's really hard to define what non-commercial actually means. Creative Commons spent something like a decade trying to scope a reasonable definition and eventually ended up essentially punting. With a few exceptions like (arguably) secondary public education use, pretty much any non-trivial use has some commercial component.
Grimburger 4y ago
> you're not FOSS > don't call it FOSS The grandparent comment clearly said OSS.
- detaro 4y ago
  Their statement is just as true if you insert "OSS" instead of "FOSS".
  - Grimburger 4y ago
    Playing the semantic game over what is or isn't "open source" is very draining sorry. If I can look at it, that's open source software to me, you can define that phrase however you want and I'm happy with that too :)
    - account42 4y ago
      There is no semantic game, open source software is a term of art with a much more specific meaning than the source being available. If you find this draining then you can simply stop trying to misappropriate the term.

djur 4y ago

By definition there aren't any, but MAME used to be distributed under such a license. I think Debian in particular has been pretty successful at exerting pressure to either relicense or replace software with non-commercial restrictions.

runfaster2000 4y ago
Do you have an example of that? That is really interesting.

ekidd 4y ago

Technically, both the original Open Source Definition https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd and the older Free Software Definition https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en#translations https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en#translations both explicitly require the ability to use programs in a commercial context. In the case of the Free Software Definition, this makes perfect sense: the FSF wants people to have certain freedoms at work, as well as freedom in their personal lives. The other challenge is that turning an open source project into a proprietary project isn't as simple as changing the license and asking for money. You need to build an entire business from scratch, and learn to close sales somehow (or sell to consumers). This will take up at least half your time.

ddevault 4y ago

Non-commercial OSS projects is a contradiction in terms.

chrisseaton 4y ago
The source can still be open even if you aren’t permitted to run it for commerce.
- dist1ll 4y ago
  That's referred to as "source-available" to distinguish it from free/libre software.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  No it can't. You're thinking of "visible source" or "source available".
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    This an early 'open source' - it did not allow for free commercial use! http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html > an open source code model ... Individuals can use OpenDOS source for personal use at no cost. Individuals and organizations desiring to commercially redistribute Caldera OpenDOS must acquire a license with an associated small fee.
  - xyzzy_plugh 4y ago
    I'm sympathetic but this is an uphill battle unworthy of fighting, in my opinion. Canonicalization of "open source" (versus "OSI Approved Open Source") is overreach of a an organization suffering from declining relevance. OSI is not helping to move the needle on licensing, and has effectively caused the industry to become frozen in time with the same stagnating licenses we had 10-15+ years ago. There's no innovation here, and I'm just tired of this. Instead we have demonic machinations like the BSL growing in relevance because there's no better alternative. I'm just so sick of it. If you asked any reasonable person what the opposite of "closed source" is, you're going to get a uniform answer from the vast majority or respondents, and a small, irritating answer from a small, increasingly irrelevant group group of folks. I understand the distinction that "source available" aspires to achieve, but it's such an unappetizing term of art that you may as well call it "I can't believe it's not open source". Champagne, Chocolate, Open Source... they're all noble but doomed uphill battles in colloquialism. Everyone knows what you mean. If you want to be correct, be truly pedantic, instead of shifting the ambiguity: French Champagne, Belgian Chocolate, OSI Approved License. Don't get me wrong, I'm a diehard FOSS supporter, I sponsor and contribute, I encourage my employers to be good global citizens with respect to FOSS and have complied with licenses by releasing modifications under appropriate licenses. I even pay Drew DeVault money. But ultimately he and everyone else arguing to enshrine the term "open source" will couple the fate of their opinions to that of the OSI and at best, it will all be a footnote in the pages of history. Will we be using the same OSI approved licenses in 10, 50, 100, 1000 years? Will the OSI permit term "open source" to be used to refer to something other than the current licenses?

nrook 4y ago

The AGPL is not a non-commercial license, but it essentially functions as one, as most companies aren't willing to comply with it. There are some projects that make their code available under the AGPL, and also let users pay to get access under a different license. Grafana is an example.

1letterunixname 4y ago
- PetitSasquatch 4y ago
  This is how it appears to me also. I suspect by 'free', GNU licenses aren't really referring to user-freedom more so source-code-freedom. It all depends on the developer's objectives, no doubt.
  - cannam 4y ago
    Source-code freedom is user freedom. It's effectively a sort of guarantee. The additional freedom that BSD licences provide is freedom for developers to do what they like, not anything to do with users. (The biggest practical advantage of a BSD licence for most developers is that if you use one when publishing your code while you work for a company, you yourself will still be able to reuse that code after you leave.)
    - bentley 4y ago
      Developers are users.
      - account42 4y ago
        Which is why it makes sense for developers to license their code under licenses that guarantee user freedoms - so that they themselves can benefit.
- rpdillon 4y ago

janober 4y ago

We at n8n (https://n8n.io/ https://n8n.io/) have something similar (but not identical) with our Sustainable Use License. Here the blog-post where we talk about it some more: https://blog.n8n.io/announcing-new-sustainable-use-license/ https://blog.n8n.io/announcing-new-sustainable-use-license/

bornfreddy 4y ago
Sounds like an interesting licence, good luck!

bbanyc 4y ago

Ghostscript used to have the most recent version under a non-commercial license (AFPL) and older versions relicensed to GPL, before they switched to AGPL only.

josephcsible 4y ago

By definition, there can be no such projects. One of the requirements for a license to be called Open Source is that it does allow commercial use.