On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidel...@meetinghouse.net> wrote: > > There is a large gap between "selling or giving away the software" and > running the software. I'm not talking about any restrictions on > distributing the software. >
The OSD was built upon the Free Software definition, and "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose" is known as freedom 0. Freedom 0 is what you are trying to restrict. Most (but not all, AGPL being a counter-example) FLOSS licenses only trigger on distribution specifically to clarify that private use and modification of the software is not restricted at all (Including whether that use is for-profit or otherwise). What you are trying to build is a non-FLOSS business model. Please expect the longer you insist that what you are wanting to do is FLOSS compatible the more aggressive people will become in suggesting you look elsewhere. Any license you come up with that restricts the way you wish will be neither Open Source nor Free Software, and thus is really off-topic for this forum. -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://l.c11.ca/ict/ "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
