[mynameisvlad]

> They want to seem altruistic but want to also be the only provider.

This is an overly negative take. At the end of the day, they are still providing software and the source code free to use for practically every purpose except directly competing with them.

That's still altruistic while also being sensible in the real world rather than an ideal.

[passthejoe]

The license disallows use of the software for what it is intended: setting up a multi-user blogging system.

[kelnos]

No, the license disallows use of the software for seeing up a multi-user blogging system as a paid service.

You might say, "well wouldn't that be most of what people might want to do with it?" And you might be right, but so what? No one is entitled to build their business on the back of someone else's work, not without their permission anyway.

That certainly makes software like this no longer Free Software. But I'm not religious about it, and maybe that's ok sometimes.

(It also runs afoul of several parts of the OSI Open Source Definition, but maybe that's ok too.)

[happymellon]

> No, the license disallows use of the software for seeing up a multi-user blogging system as a paid service

This is incorrect.

https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/blob/master/LICEN...

> You may not provide the Software as a hosted or managed service that offers users access to substantial features or functionality.

It does not make the distinction around a financial transaction.

[jwitthuhn]

Not "as a paid service" just "as a service". The license does not allow me to stand up a Bear instance and let people blog on it for free.

[foxglacier]

Not for practically every purpose. It's a blog platform to be used by services that provide blog hosting, just like his own business does, so any use of it would be directly competing with him. From TFA, he never wanted people to actually use it, just to look at the source code.