[38]

I have switched a couple of my more popular projects from OSL:

https://opensource.org/license/osl-3-0-php

to non commercial:

https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0

people always howl that "its no longer open source", and maybe that's true. but the source code is still on GitHub as its always been, and you can still do whatever you want with it, as long as its not for commercial purpose. I offer a commercial license for a fee. so despite the roar of complaints from open source purists, it works for me.

[version_five]

> people always howl that "its no longer open source"

That's a legit complaint, particularly if someone contributed to it, gave feedback, was part of the user community, depended on it etc and would have chosen differently it they knew it wasn't open source. You changed the terms from "everyone can profit from this" to "only I can profit from this" which is a pretty big change. It's your right, but it shouldn't be surprising people don't like it.

[38]

all previous versions still have the open source license, so people can fork if they find it so distasteful.

> only I can profit from this

no, thats not true. nothing is stopping anyone from buying a commercial license from me, and then making money from the software after that.

[distcs]

Even if we ignore the open source purists, restricting commercial usage still violates the popular libre software guidelines like FSD and DFSG:

* https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition - FSD

* https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines - DFSG

It violates freedom 0 of FSD!

The problem with that is that a lot of non-profit organizations that do use libre software cannot use your software because it violates one of the fundamental requirements of libre software guidelines: No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor / The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). So such software become automatically disqualified for non-profits that want to run themselves on libre software.

I know it is your software and you are totally entitled to release it under any license you want and make money off it. Nothing wrong with it. But I'm hoping you can see why this is a problem for those who want to use libre software who are also entitled to ignore your software and keep looking for something that is actually libre.

[38]

> It violates freedom 0 of FSD!

yes, I understand that. the "noncommercial" in the license URL is a pretty big sign that "any purpose" is not allowed.

> The problem with that is that a lot of non-profit organizations that do use libre software cannot use your software because it violates one of the fundamental requirements of libre software guidelines

this doesn't make logical sense. non-profits are not commercial, so they are allowed usage, both in the license terms and by me now, saying explicitly, that I am allowing that usage of my software. if THEY CHOOSE to restrict themselves by requiring "pure" open source software only, thats THEIR fault, not mine.

[distcs]

> if THEY CHOOSE to restrict themselves by requiring "pure" open source software only, thats THEIR fault, not mine.

It is nobody's fault. Just like nobody can force you to choose a "pure" open source license, nobody can force them to use your software. Just like you have the prerogative to choose whatever license you want, they have the prerogative to choose "pure" libre software. It's all fair and well and nobody is at fault for exercising their choices.

Most of the time though, the non-profits go for "pure" libre software because their legal team has already provided a blanket approval for all libre licenses. So it is less hassle for them to choose libre software available under these licenses. Choosing a noncommercial license would be more procedural hassle for them in terms of reviews, approvals, etc. Yeah it may sound stupid to not use otherwise perfectly good software due to a legal and procedural technicality, but I'm just saying how things are and not necessarily how things should be.

[kiba]

A lot of discussion around has been people disingenuously calling their software open source when it isn't.

I have a less of a problem with people openly restricting their software to non-commercial usage only.

[mrweiner]

Do you know how that non commercial license differs from BSL? I’m getting ready to release a product and trying to figure out licensing.

[tomcam]

Interesting. Has it been more advantageous financially?

[likenesstheft]

People are upset that they can't profit off your labor without a license? Those don't sound like open source purists to me. They sound like straight up thieves lol.

[dragonwriter]

> People are upset that they can't profit off your labor without a license?

No, open source licenses are, in fact, licenses.