[gryfft]

Many open source licenses levy restrictions upon the acceptable use of the software. Those restrictions may include attribution requirements, up to and including a requirement to include the license when redistributing the code; they may forbid using derivative works for commercial purposes; they may require the downstream project to utilize the same license. Open source is not the same thing as "anybody can do anything they want forever."

[tzs]

> they may forbid using derivative works for commercial purposes

The most widely used definitions of “open source” do not allow such a prohibition.

[stanac]

Yup, if we take OSI as defacto authority on open source definition

> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

https://opensource.org/osd

[lenerdenator]

> Unless you don't copy the license terms

[gryfft]

You edited your comment while I was replying, and merely copying the license does not cover many other possible restrictions.

[lenerdenator]

I didn't edit anything.

I did choose the wrong word, though. Comply, not copy.

[gryfft]

Well, if it's my memory at fault then I apologize. My memory of the comment I replied to didn't include the initial qualifying phrase with either word choice.

[DiabloD3]

So, by definition, you did edit it to change the typo.

[john_strinlai]

>So, by definition, you did edit it to change the typo.

their comment still says "copy". the comment you are replying to clarifies that they meant to type "comply", not copy.

since the wrong word is still there, 'by definition' they have not edited it.