4 ms·

I think the conversation around this would be much more advanced if the Commons Clause-like non-commercial clauses were accepted as legitimate open-source appro

I think the conversation around this would be much more advanced if the Commons Clause-like non-commercial clauses were accepted as legitimate open-source approaches. A non-commercial clause basically guarantees that corporations can't hijack OSS projects or they can't pressure the maintainers to the point of burnout. And similarly, OSS projects who explicitly allow commercial usage could point to their licence and require financial support before fixing issues/merging PRs from interested companies.

eadmund 3y ago
Non-commercial clauses violate Freedom 0, the freedom to run software for any purpose. It’s the single most foundational freedom. A non-commercial clause basically guarantees that a piece of software will not be used. For that matter, why should e.g. Warren Buffet personally get to use non-commercial software personally for free, while the bakery down the street must pay for it? That doesn’t seem desirable. I think the biggest issue is that the companies charging for open source are not turning around and funding everyone the rely on, just a few key projects. If they tried to distribute a little bit to everyone, I think that would go a long way.