[kazinator]

The site is literally recommending developers to add an EULA to their software licensing.

The example EULA contains text like:

> Failure to pay the Fee will result in the termination of this license. Upon termination, User must cease all use of the Software and remove it from all systems.

That directly contradicts what you're saying: that the software maybe use without payment, and only participation in the project (such as using the bug tracker) requires commercial users to pay a fee.

FOSS must not have anything resembling an EULA. Give me money or erase the software is just not free open source by any stretch of the imagination.

Everything recommended by the site is OK to do, and well within an author's right. What's wrong is the misinformation that the result is still open source.

[robmensching]

Ahh, the bulk of the negative feedback has been about the draft example EULAs. Those are under review by an actual lawyer (as noted in the `IANAL` note near the top of https://opensourcemaintenancefee.org/maintainers/eulas/), and any text that conflicts with any Open Source License (permissive or copy-left) will be fixed. The line "Failure to pay the Fee will result in the termination of this license. Upon termination, User must cease all use of the Software and remove it from all systems." will definitely not survive lawyer review.

(I definitely wish I just put "TBD" on the site for the EULAs instead of a pre-canned version. I wonder if I should switch it out now or if that would create more confusion).

Note: your statement that FOSS must not have anything resembling a EULA is incorrect. EULAs are allowed, but they cannot impose restrictions that contradict the open-source license. Requiring payment for distribution fees (including packaging, convenience, and maintenance) is allowed.

[kazinator]

The thing is, that FOSS cannot have an EULA. Free, open source software is accompanied by licenses which pertain only to the redistribution of the source code, not stipulating any restrictions on the use of the program.

One notable deviation from this is the GNU Affero license ("AGPL") which requires someone operating the AGPLed service program, if the program is accessible to network visitors and uses modified code, to offer the modified source code to the visitors. This is quite controversial; not everyone (myself included) agrees that the AGPL is a free software license like the GPL.