[fhd2]

It really does, by any definition I've ever heard. I suppose the authoritative one would be [1].

A common "trick" for commercial open source software is to use a copyleft license, which restricts redistribution as part of commercial products, and to offer a paid license to get around that.

[1]: https://opensource.org/osd

[fragmede]

GNU disagrees.

> Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.

> Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

[fhd2]

Fascinating, from skimming that, it does indeed appear that it would be within the GNU philosophy to distribute source code solely in exchange for payment. Doesn't cover a case where the source code is _already_ distributed though, then it's free to run.

And even if the source code was only distributed to paying customers, that'd likely be a temporary situation. A relevant quote:

"With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access."

I do read the GPLv3 such that if someone _does_ buy the code in any fashion, you must provide the source code to them for free. Relevant excerpt from section 6:

"[...] give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge."

But yeah, no obligation to provide the source code for free to non-customers, fair point. Just no ability to stop customers from sharing it with non-customers. Does make sense.

[echelon]

> > Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license.

This is interesting. If it had a limitation on reselling or a non-commercial / non-compete clause, it'd be almost perfect.

Today lots of companies come in and take open source software and "steal" the profits. (You could argue that theft is invalid since the license allows for this.) This makes it hard for the authors to build a durable business. Certainly difficult to build into a large-scale company.

Open source needs a better mechanism for authors to make money with what they create while still enabling user freedom to do what they want with the software - modify, reuse, publish changes, etc.

"Open core" is one strategy, but it feels like stepping around limitations in the license. Just spelling out "we want to make money in a defensible way" and giving user freedoms seems like a step in the right direction. More companies would probably opt to share their code if this happened.

[embedding-shape]

Nothing in that "authoritative" definition says you cannot charge for binaries, for example. It's talking mainly about source code itself. Something you just publish the source for but charge for anything else, would be fair game and still "open source" by that definition.

[fhd2]

Agreed, "free" is too broad.

I was responding to parent's question though: "Can you call it open source if you need a subscription license to run / edit the code?"

I'd say no. If you have the code in front of you, it shouldn't require a license to run. Even if the whole point of the open source software is to interact with a proprietary piece of software or service, you could still run it for free, it probably just wouldn't have much utility.