[hannob]

Of course people can license their stuff in whatever weird way they want and I don't have to like it.

But I don't like it when people lie to me. The title is "Trying a new open source model" - the content is "Trying not to be open source any more". If you don't want to do open source then you can of course do that. But if you don't want to do open source any more and still say you're doing open source then you're lying.

(And before anyone answers: No, there's no "other open source" or "a different kind of open source". Open Source is a clearly defined term and such restricted licenses aren't.)

[INTPenis]

You're confusing open source software with free software.

I'm on your side in principle but the distinction is important in this case.

[hannob]

> You're confusing open source software with free software.

No, I'm not. Please read the open source definition: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

In practical terms there's very little difference between free software and open source. It's mostly a "philosophical" difference - free software advocates put an emphasis on "freedom", while open source advocates see it more as a business model. But the requirements for the licensing are identical.

[INTPenis]

I see what you mean but that doesn't make sense to me.

Open source is by definition of the phrase, as well as in practical cases, a program whos source is available. Nothing more.

There are many prominent open source programs that also exist as a licensed product.

That's why I have always believed free software (FOSS) to be the other definition where the software cannot be licensed or sold for a profit.

[gpderetta]

This doesn't meet neither the free software nor Open Source license requirements. It might be open source in some colloquial sense, but that's not how the term is usually understood in the trade.

[jrochkind1]

nope. i think you're confusing "free as in libre software" with "free as in beer" software.