[roenxi]

Also, if the end user can't use it for commercial purposes then the software is by definition not FOSS software. That would be a major restriction on their freedom. It is impossible to have a FOSS community that restricts its software from being used in commerce. The emphasis has always been on the F-for-freedom part of FOSS, especially after the schism with the OSS people who don't see freedom as the same level of priority.

[ADeerAppeared]

> if the end user can't use it for commercial purposes then the software is by definition not FOSS software.

Okay but like, who cares. The definition of "Free Software" is just whatever RMS screeches about. The OSI is rather biased towards them, and importantly, does not own the trademark.

> That would be a major restriction on their freedom.

Then why complain that they excercise that freedom.

Either commercial use without paying back is an explicitly granted and supported freedom, and then companies doing that is fine. Or it is not, in which case restrict commercial use on the free license if you want companies to pay up.

[roenxi]

> Okay but like, who cares.

People who care about freedom. The question answers itself. If the person writing the software is laying down the law about how it is going to be used then, as a simple and practical matter, the user is being denied freedom. If code can't be used for business purposes it is a bit of stretch to say it is free software. We may as well call pirated software free software if we're being that loose with language that we only mean price; people don't pay for it either. The "free" stands for freedom.

> Then why complain that they excercise that freedom.

They've just legally given up all the coercive options, so the only tool left is complaint. That is one of the major points of the whole thing - for everyone to have the most freedom communities have to try and resolve disputes by clear communication, vocalising concerns, argument and persuasion.

Although I think you've misread KingMob's comment. Exactly what they meant is open to interpreting, but what they actually said isn't a complaint. "Free-riders" is a technical term for what most FOSS software users are doing. It might be explicitly endorsed by the software maintainer but it is still free-riding.

[ADeerAppeared]

> They've just legally given up all the coercive options, so the only tool left is complaint

My previous comment on this was unclear.

The very act of complaining about it betrays the idea that it's "freedom".

Either companies have the freedom to take without giving back, in which case forcing them to buy the software breaks those freedoms, but you shouldn't complain.

Or they do not have the freedom, in which case just sell the software normally.