• spauldo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    A license that has restrictions like that doesn’t meet the criteria to call itself “open source.”

    • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the designation of “open source” is such that any open source project can be used by massive corporations or militaries or anything else like that, then the designation “open source” isn’t worth protecting and we need a new one that allows for free use by enthusiasts and other free projects but that is blocked or paywalled from profit-seeking ones.

      • spauldo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re free to use whatever license you want for software you write.

        The term “open source” has an actual definition, just like the term “free software” does. Both definitions say you can’t restrict who can use the software or what they can use it for.

    • dubba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Free/libre software is not the same as open source, but I agree that it is difficult to enforce prohibitions with source available.

      • spauldo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, I mean that item number 6 of the Open Source Definition specifically states you cannot restrict the use of the software for any particular field or endeavor. That includes use in military applications.

        If you have restrictions like that in your license, it’s not open source.