5 ms·
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.
by 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 agoFurthermore, 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 agoTheir statement is just as true if you insert "OSS" instead of "FOSS".
- Grimburger 4y agoPlaying 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 agoThere 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.