I really don’t understand the difference between free software and open source at tis point. It would make sense to me if this would make it nonfree, but I don’t understand why is it not open source anymore. Isn’t the open source definition a broader one than that of free software?
@ReversalHatchery @velox_vulnus
It violates “freedom 0” of the Free Software Definition too, so no difference there. This limitation on use makes is non-open-source AND non-free-software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition
It’s clear that it’s not free software, because as the name suggests, that’s about freedoms.
What is not really clear is that it’s not open source. To me at least it means that the source is public, you can change it, use it, send in patches, etc, but possibly with some limitations.
If I give you a free beer, you have one beer. If I give you the recipe, you can make your own beer. You do have to make your own open source beer or you can hire someone to do it for you or perhaps take you through the steps a few times until you’ve got it. With luck there will be a community of open source beer brewers with whom you can interact and improve those recipes.
Free software is free until it isn’t! The illicit drugs industry works in a similar way (the first hit is for free).
Never read something more wrong about the subject. I sounds like you don’t actually know what Free Software refers to, and that it has nothing to do with the price.
Open Source Software follows the Open Source Definition, while Free Software follows the Free Software Definition.
They have heavy overlap, one is not a subset of the other, and they are similarly restrictive, just shepherded by different groups. I’m sure there are licences that satisfy one but not the other, but they would have to be few and far between; just reading through each it’s not obvious how one could satisfy only one definition.
