I wrote this blog post. Talking about an innovative open source license. Give me comments about it!
https://itsfoss.community/t/thinking-about-new-open-source-licenses/10965
@itsfoss @opensource @thelinuxEXP @nixCraft @gamingonlinux @omgubuntu @omglinux
It would violate point six of the open source definition[0], so wouldn’t be an open source license.
@RobotToaster Maybe, but maybe not. The sale of open source software is already a thing (look at Rhel. Not quite the same, but you get what I mean). The hypothetical license is not prohibiting the use of the software for corporate purposes. It must only be purchased. And the price is decided by an association, so you can’t put an unreasonable price to prohibit the use.
Very nice. The first sentence is a bit of a run-on. The three question marks is a bit too informal. The sentence “If, on the other hand, the redistributed software, want to be sold too, must be purchased as it is equivalent to a for-profit company” has grammatical errors. Keep writing!
@ArcticAmphibian thanks for the feedback!
