We once had Richard Stallman at the HPI and he gave a talk about free software. One of the audience had a question like the following: he wants his software to be free, but he is also a pacifist and wants to prevent the software from being used for weapons and such, is there a way? Mr. Stallman responded that what the asker wants is a contradiction because if the software is to be truly free software you must not restrict who will use it or how it will be used [or modified or distributed]. So you have to choose your priorities.
"Open source" is less strict about protecting or enforcing those freedoms. But the definition of the Open Source Initiative does not allow restrictions on how the software may be used either. https://opensource.org/docs/osd#fields-of-endeavor
Some FOSS licenses like the GPL are simply very unattractive to certain audiences such as corporations. That is the foundation of the dual licensing idea... BerkeleyDB (by Oracle nowadays) is one example about which you can read more: free if used in appropriately-licensed free software, but requires commercial licenses for use in other kinds of software.
Freeware licenses (i. e. non-open-source) do not seem to carry names that often, at least I do not recall any. It appears like everyone writes their own... or they copy some text that they have seen elsewhere. Note that this may be illegal too because the license texts are also often copyrighted. So if you just copied the license text from another software package and exchanged the names in there, you may violate the copyright of the license author in doing so. ;-)
In the end, you must probably get advice from a lawyer if you take this seriously. If there is not much at stake for you, it might suffice that you write plainly what you want or do not want. That may not hold up in court, but if you do not plan to sue whoever you may discover to have used your software against your will, that may not be so relevant after all... I do not know how necessary these liability voiding clauses are nowadays to protect yourself.
Am Mo., 26. Dez. 2022 um 10:00 Uhr schrieb David O'Toole < deeteeoh1138@gmail.com>:
I think the Free Software definition requires that the user have the freedom to use the software for any purpose, including commercial. I am not a lawyer, but I have understood this to imply that restricting commercial use would make the license a non-Free one.
On Sun, Dec 25, 2022 at 11:31 PM rabbit rabbit@callistohouse.org wrote:
I am unfamiliar with FOSS licensing. Does anyone know about an open source license that allows free use for free software, but requires payment if its uses are for commercial software?
â˘â˘â˘ đđ đŽđ¤đŞ đđ§đ đđ§đđŤđđŁđ đ đđ¤đ§đ¨đđđ, đŠđđđŁđ đŽđ¤đŞ đđ¤đ§ đ˘đ¤đŤđđŁđ đ¤đŤđđ§, đ¨đ¤ đŠđđđŠ đ đđ¤đŞđĄđ đ¨đđđđĄđŽ đĽđđ¨đ¨! *Arrivederci, rabbit ⢠D*đđŠđ¨đŞđŁ đŽđ°đŹđ ⢠đ°