[drdaeman]

> that enables your customers to use you freely [...] There are such licenses

There are such licenses only if you change the definition of "freely" to fit the narrative. Historically, "freely" (as in "free software") means granting end-user four essential software freedoms:

- The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).

- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

If I can't redistribute ("resell") software, or can't run it and let others access it for a fee - it's not "use freely" anymore.

[hodgesrm]

Thanks. That's my definition of "use freely." The argument about what's open source mostly boils down to whether you accept these terms.