this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2026
614 points (98.4% liked)
Open Source
49130 readers
1123 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 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree that its weird to use a content license.
But in what way do your listed requirements not apply to this project and license?
You can do whatever you want, besides makind money with it or sharing/changing it without attribution.
As far as i know hardware licenses are a bit strange still?
But i just dont unterstand your point and would like to
The restrictions on commercial use are what make it unqualified as an open-source license.
@Augmented1207@feddit.org @AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net their point is that commercial restrictions go against both the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement as layed out by both of their definitions and it's harmful for several reasons (see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html)
sit with the thought for a moment, what if the GNU operating system or the Linux kernel, etc.. had a commercial restriction on them, there would be more complications then, and the physical copies made by other distributions wouldn't be made, and so on