The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

Source

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Not everyone agrees:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html

In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions.

First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses. For example, Open Watcom is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately. Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Of course they don't qualify as free licences but they are still open source

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, that was my point.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah we agree

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 6 points 1 day ago

Ah yes 2026 where we let corporations define our language for their own goals

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev -3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Yes, quote from your Bible. It will always be right.