7 ms·
> I may be misinterpreting here, so please do correct me I meant to say that being open source doesn’t automatically mean you can use the software commercially
by throw88888 2y ago
> I may be misinterpreting here, so please do correct me
I meant to say that being open source doesn’t automatically mean you can use the software commercially, hence the need for a liberal (enough) license (to permit you this option).
No ideology intended so to say :)
> Does the permissiveness of the license matter more than the utility of the tool?
No of course not. A useless, but free tool is still useless. Likewise I’d argue that a useful open source tool you can’t use commercially is equally useless to many.
> However, a lot of FOSS options would be much better off if consumers did contribute to the project
I agree with you here
- mroche 2y agoThanks for clarifying, that's what I assumed you meant. I've just seen enough people get antsy or vocally against free software using a copyleft license instead of a permissive one* it makes me second guess some phrasings. > being open source doesn’t automatically mean you can use the software commercially I acknowledge there is a split in recognizing "open source" as between (a) a broad term of source code read-ability or (b) attributed to the specification defined by the Open Source Initiative. I see both arguments, but I believe using the OSI definition can eliminate some of these uncertainties. * Despite the fact it's an end-user tool/application they will not be exposing, modifying, or extending in any way.