While I do understand your points about terminology @strypey I do think that language changes over time, and if you're worried about confusion, I am not opposed to either:
1. clarify this as dual licensing "free software + conditional license" (like MySQL and other projects already do)
2. call it something else entirely (Commons Code? Peerware? Coop Source?)

IMO it's more important to discuss the actual issues and to experiment with solutions than to get stuck in strictly interpreting old labels and rules, which just leads to going around in circles (like the recent disagreements around Fedilab and F-droid, or about constitutional amendments in the US...)

@mayel
the reason I'm being fussy about terminology is that there are *reasons* the were defined as they were. It's not like the Project folks didn't think through the potential consequences of including unrestricted commercial use in the freedoms their licenses protect. But they concluded that the cost of limiting commercial re-use outweighs the benefits and saw as a better solution.
(1/?)
@Wolf480pl@niu.moe

Follow

@mayel
Most of the projects complaining about parasitic use and proposing these commercial use limits release their software under non-copyleft licenses. Why? Because they *want* greater uptake by companies that don't want to use copyleft softwarw that obliges them to contribute back. Then when they get exactly that, they complain about it. The solution seems obvious: copyleft. But instead they try to have their cake and eat it too, with these vanity licenses.
(2/?)
@Wolf480pl@niu.moe

@mayel the deeper problem I see with trying to restrict commercial use is that it's the wrong target. There are, as @Wolf480pl@niu.moe points out, plenty of commercial entities, even corporations, that *do* contribute back to the free code projects they use, through hiring contributors, funding community infrastructure. etc There are also plenty of large, non-commercial entities (both govermental and NGO) that parasite off free code when they can afford to contribute. The issue is reciprocity.
(3/?)

@mayel the deeper problem I see with trying to restrict commercial use is that it's the wrong target. There are, as @Wolf480pl@niu.moe points out, plenty of commercial entities, even corporations, that *do* contribute back to the free code projects they use, through hiring contributors, funding community infrastructure. etc There are also plenty of large, non-commercial entities (both govermental and NGO) that parasite off free code when they can afford to contribute. The issue is reciprocity.
(3/?)

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - NZOSS

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!