It would violate point six of the open source definition[0], so wouldn't be an open source license.
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
6 points (80.0% liked)
Open Source
31114 readers
1 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
@RobotToaster Maybe, but maybe not. The sale of open source software is already a thing (look at Rhel. Not quite the same, but you get what I mean). The hypothetical license is not prohibiting the use of the software for corporate purposes. It must only be purchased. And the price is decided by an association, so you can't put an unreasonable price to prohibit the use.
Very nice. The first sentence is a bit of a run-on. The three question marks is a bit too informal. The sentence "If, on the other hand, the redistributed software, want to be sold too, must be purchased as it is equivalent to a for-profit company" has grammatical errors. Keep writing!