[huhtenberg]

Since your site quite explicitly aims to be an introduction to the F/OSS, it'd be prudent to explain that the "use" includes "resell". Seeing one's altruistic work meant for the common good being unceremoniously repackaged, sold and SEO'd above the original can be very discouraging.

[ddevault]

I feel like it's pretty explicit:

> You are entitled to the use of any free software for any purpose, including commercial use – counter-intuitively, you can sell free software.

There are also sections which go into the utility of copyleft to mitigate some of this.

Might be worth going into more detail in a blog post.

[huhtenberg]

It's nowhere near being explicit. "Commercial use" is really quite ambiguous.

In common parlance of people somewhat exposed to the software licensing it means "use for work", because of the proliferation of "personal use" and "commercial use" licensing duos.

Realizing that this clause also covers other people being allowed to sell your work is a non-trivial effort. I'd also argue that this would go very much against expectations of FOSS newcomers as it's pretty much counter-intuitive as it goes against the altruistic spirit of the FOSS. Hence the need to have it explained upfront and very clearly.

[GoblinSlayer]

Sale is really distribution: https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/four-freedoms/#2-share-t...

[huhtenberg]

Well, sure, you and I know that. This website is aimed at the novices however.

One of them will read through the website and get excited to give FOSS a try. He will put in the work, release the project only to see it getting reskinned and put up for sale. This will be as unexpected as it will be demoralizing. So this eventuality needs to disclosed upfront and not hid behind amorphous "commercial use" and misleading "a fee [...] for instance to cover the costs of bandwidth". Just be frank with those whom you are trying to convert, especially about the caveats.