41

You may charge money for distributing free (as-in-freedom) software. However, if your license is a true FSF-approved free license, then charging based on purpose isn't so much a license violation as it is a nonsensical thing to do. Because the license provides the freedom to use it for any purpose, a buyer can trivially express a desire to use your ...


14

The main problem you will be having is with the freedom to redistribute copies (freedom 2 and 3). The GNU project codifies this freedom in GPL clarifying it's exact meaning: You are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (...


11

The GNU Philosophy says: “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. It says there that the price of the software does not matter in any situation. As ...


7

The FSF includes Freedom #1 in their Free Software Definition: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A software artifact is not inherently free or nonfree, but the terms under which it is possible (legally and practically) to use, ...


6

Technically you still have free software, but such a business model by itself is questionable. If your product is an end-user application, this is unlikely to work as a pricing model. Anyone who obtained a copy for free can post it online, so that commercial users can get it for free. If you put an addition term that prevents such distribution, then you no ...


5

Copyright law is centered around making a copy of something and then doing things with that copy. How such a copy is made is usually not specified in the copyright laws, which makes that a "mental copy", where a work is read and then what was memorized is reproduced, can be regarded as a copy as well. As copyright law works on actually making a ...


4

Yes, that is possible. Even for a strong copyleft license like the GPL, when two applications communicate "at arms length" with each other, then the two applications are considered to be independent works and their copyright licenses don't affect each other. The determination if two pieces of code communicate "at arms length" revolves mostly around if they ...


2

Discord claims rights over two things here, the SDK (copying and use thereof) and their API (use and implementation thereof). The question of the SDK is pretty simple: it's a piece of software, and it's well-established that you can require end-users to agree to arbitrary terms when they take copies of your software, and expect them to be honoured. The ...


1

As you can check the discord API on https://github.com/discord/discord-api-docs It is an open API and you will be able to use this API in your application, but each API that is provided by a developer is bound by the legal terms set by the developer themselves, and for discord you can find them here https://discord.com/developers/docs/legal From the same ...


1

Freedom is not a property that inheres in software; it's a set of rights that attach to software through the act of conveyance. Even less does it inhere in an installed system, powered-down, on a table. So it's not very meaningful to speak of your system as being free, or non-free, in isolation. If you have the rights and capability to exercise all four ...


1

You cannot restrict this just with the license in an efficient, working way and still claim it is a Free software. The right thing to do would be to have the support contract in addition to the software. The support may be paid for commercial use and free (mostly non existent or relying on community input only) for non commercial use.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible