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 ...


36

TeX was created before Open Source was formally defined. Its use is not restricted; it is stated explicitly in Knuth's writings that its methods and algorithms may be used freely for any purpose, whether personal or commercial. The request that changes to the program under its original name be made only by the author is made for the purpose of maintaining ...


34

No Open Source license does that. Even the GNU GPL license allows one program to interact with another non-free program via pipes, sockets, streams etc. While the licenses can't do this, there are Linux distributions where the distribution creators make a commitment to only including free software, for example the Debian main package repository.


27

Yes, it is open source, at least according to the Open Source Definition, the closest thing the community has to an agreed definition of open source. The clause that allows this is Clause 4: Integrity of The Author's Source Code The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "...


18

Which licenses give me a guarantee that a software I'm installing is completely open-source, free of closed-source dependencies or components? Unfortunately, a license cannot do that. Here's the problem. Anyone can attach put any license file into their project repo that they want to. The text of the license file may assert that that everything in their ...


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 ...


6

It is probably not free. Going through the points that concern me: To avoid any misunderstandings, we consider software to constitute a "derivative work" of Covered Software for the purposes of this license if it does any of the following: In the GPL, "derivative work" is intentionally undefined. It is a term of art in copyright law, ...


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 ...


5

While there is a kind of classification for open-source licenses, the classifications don't really extend beyond open-source. The best classification that I can come up with for the RSAL is that it is a source-available license that allows usages that don't compete with Redis Lab's business. But that classification of course only contains the one license.


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 ...


3

Tests are not generally part of a program, so I would consider a license that requires tests to be published to be non-free. Conversely, I think that deliberately withholding tests for open-source software is technically fine, but quite uncooperative. Unlike the actual source code or build scripts, access to tests is not required to inspect or modify a ...


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 ...


2

Not directly answering the question, but the Free Software Foundation maintains a list of Free GNU/Linux distributions here Since in freedom 1 is stated that "Access to the source code is a precondition for this.", I believe that all the distributions listed there are fully open-source too (otherwise the precondition of freedom 1 would not hold)


1

As others have noted, someone distributing software cannot change substitute their license for whatever license a third part distributed the third-party software under. So no license can offer any assurance there's no third-party components with a more restrictive license. There is no substitute for examining all third-party pieces and their licenses. When I ...


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

Short answer: Whether software is "free" (as in freedom) depends on the licensing terms, and the software owner is allowed to license it to different users under different terms. Longer answer: A license that allows noncommercial use only is not a free license because it violates "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)." ...


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.


1

I think technically speaking it's more likely that "free software" is a subset of "open-source software" because the freedoms of modification and distribution of such, as defined by FSF's four essential freedoms, require the access to the source code. Nevertheless, as two institutions in the reality, FSF and OSI may have different ...


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