[jchmrt]

One of the criteria of the most often used definition of open source [0] is that the program is free to use and modify for all purposes. So a noncommercial license would not qualify as open source. This is also a requirement of the free software definition of the FSF, which is also often used to define free/open source.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

[rnd0]

GNU zealouts (and I consider myself one) need to take a deep breath and re-think what is being said.

It *IS* accurate to say that the program and source must be free to use for all purposes the recipient wants including commercial.

This was an involved conversation that was had during the 90's and yes, "no commercial reuse allowed" licenses are not -in fact- free licenses. I might be wrong but I have the impression they are not allowed on debian cds/dvds for that reason.

> If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially? (#GPLCommercially)

> You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL.

> These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLCommercially

[jbverschoor]

"all purposes" cannot include any GPL licensed software because it clashes with certain licenses. So by that definition Linux is not Open Source.

The BSD and MIT licenses

[chomp]

Wrong. Open Source does not have to bend the knee to whatever proprietary license you can dream up and shove into your code base.

>Source code: The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

Does this apply to Linux? Check.

>Derived works: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

Does this apply to Linux? Check.

Please visit https://opensource.org/licenses/ to see all of the licenses that are generally agreed upon to be Open Source licenses.

[detaro]

"combine specific software X with specific other software Y" is not a field of endeavor, so this argument is bullshit.