Too ambiguous. The main driver behind open source’s success is largely in some way, shape, or form "profit." Saying nobody can profit by using the project essentially limits its use to strict personal-use, and even then — it depends on how deep "profit" goes, and what "profit" means.
In any case, you can say that in a clearer way.
lproven · 22h ago
Heh. We both said the same, here and on Lobsters. :-)
I have been speculating for over a year about a FOSS license that stipulates and specifies free use.
What I wanted to do was write one that was less absolute: take this, use it, do as thou wilt, so long as you do not accept money for it. But if you use it in such a way as to make money, you must pay us a percentage.
This is more absolute, but I approve.
jethronethro · 19h ago
And here I thought that this was a license that lets you send John Wick after the people who violate it ...
lproven · 22h ago
I like this. I like the style, the language, and the concept.
I wonder if it qualifies as a Free Software or open source licence?
MountainMan1312 · 19h ago
I love it. The world needs more magical things and less legalese.
I also added "you can't use this to make money" in my license [1] but I was a bit more specific, and I don't think I'm quite finished with the language yet. It feels a bit too specific but also not specific at all, weird mix. Also mine is in a purposefully-unenforceable version of legalese. I really like your magical approach. I've been describing myself as a metamagical artificer for a while now. You might just inspired me to rewrite mine.
Mine goes a bit more extreme than yours though. Not only does mine disallow parasites from using my software, it also disallows abusers of every kind. Bigots too. And the state. In fact lawyers and governments are explicitly disallowed from interpreting or enforcing my license.
In any case, you can say that in a clearer way.
I have been speculating for over a year about a FOSS license that stipulates and specifies free use.
What I wanted to do was write one that was less absolute: take this, use it, do as thou wilt, so long as you do not accept money for it. But if you use it in such a way as to make money, you must pay us a percentage.
This is more absolute, but I approve.
I wonder if it qualifies as a Free Software or open source licence?
I also added "you can't use this to make money" in my license [1] but I was a bit more specific, and I don't think I'm quite finished with the language yet. It feels a bit too specific but also not specific at all, weird mix. Also mine is in a purposefully-unenforceable version of legalese. I really like your magical approach. I've been describing myself as a metamagical artificer for a while now. You might just inspired me to rewrite mine.
Mine goes a bit more extreme than yours though. Not only does mine disallow parasites from using my software, it also disallows abusers of every kind. Bigots too. And the state. In fact lawyers and governments are explicitly disallowed from interpreting or enforcing my license.
- [1]: http://git.tgwil.net/legal/license.tgwil/plain/license.txt