Non-Commercial Licenses Are Non-Free Licenses
You have a right to distribute the software you right under any terms you wish. If you are sick of tech giants using free software without giving back, then you&#x27;re entitled to use some other licensing model. But you cannot change the meaning of free software.<p>The terms &quot;free software&quot; and &quot;open source&quot; have a specific meaning in the software ecosystem. The former is defined by the Free Software Definition and the latter by the Open Source Definition, respectively published by the FSF and OSI. These definitions both require that the software is available for commercial use without restriction, among other things.<p>These terms do not need to be trademarked to make their misuse wrong, in the same way that advertising cakes when you actually sell pizzas is wrong. Making cakes is fine, and making pizzas is fine, but a pizza store misleading its customers because they want to get in on the cake market is not fine.<p>The success of free and open source software attracts those who wish to reap its benefits without agreeing to its terms. This is wrong, and needs to stop. You cannot have a commercial monopoly over your FOSS projects; if you insist on one, then your projects are not FOSS.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;drewdevault.com&#x2F;2021&#x2F;01&#x2F;20&#x2F;FOSS-is-to-surrender-your-monopoly.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;drewdevault.com&#x2F;2021&#x2F;01&#x2F;20&#x2F;FOSS-is-to-surrender-your...</a>