Is this a joke? OSI essentially means only "corporate friendly" licenses are allowed. If someone wants to protect their work under a non-commercial license, they can do that on GitHub but not CodeBerg.
Yes, use-restricted licenses aren’t Free Software. Codeberg is a non-profit that promotes Free Software. Not a joke, just out of mission.
people always like to come out of the woodwork in these discussion throwing around scary terms. non-commercial licenses are exactly like any other open source license, with that one restriction that it cant be used for commercial purpose. people do this for good reason, to stop companies from making huge profits off the back of free work. so use whatever fancy term you want, but the practice is not defensible.
There’s no scary terms involved here. Codeberg is a nonprofit foundation with Free software as part of its mission.
> non-commercial licenses are exactly like any other open source license,
non-commercial and other use-restricted licenses are not Open Source (OSI) or Free Software (FSF) licenses.
> people do this for good reason
And that is their right. Just as it is the right of a nonprofit organization whose entire mission is around licensing terms that are not use-restricted not to use their resources to support such software.
People oppose use-restricted licenses for good reason, too.
non-commercial licenses protect free software, just not in the pedantic meaning you are peddling.
> non-commercial and other use-restricted licenses are not Open Source (OSI) or Free Software (FSF) licenses.
looks like you cropped the rest of that sentence, so here it is again: with that one restriction that it cant be used for commercial purpose. Also if being OSI or FSF compliant, means that businesses can use my work for free, then no thank you.
> People oppose use-restricted licenses for good reason, too.
yeah, because they want software without paying for it, which they can then use to turn a profit.
No, they don't. Non-ommercial licenses make software broadly unusable by businessez, they don’t protect it. They typically exist to pritect the creators income from separating selling the aoftware as non-free (in even the gratis sense) for commercial users.
“No selling other software or services whose main component is the licensed software” licenses, which may be what you are thinking of, OTOH, of various forms (which are different than non-commercial licenses) protect the original software vendor from competition in selling their own software and services; they don't protect free (even gratis) software, but, like general non-commercial licenses and other proprietary licenses, thet protect the commercial interests of the software vendor.
> if being OSI or FSF compliant, means that businesses can use my work for free, then no thank you.
Sure, you are absolutely entitled under copyright law to choose a proprietary license that protects your commercial interests. When you do so, however, you aren’t entitled to the services of a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting Free (in the FSF sense) software to support your development and distribution of your non-Free software.
Kind of weird that you are so emphatic about not wanting other people to use your work for free and yet feel so entitled to other people making their work available to you for free even when your use directly opposes the purpose of their work.
people can use my work for free, as long as the use is non-commercial. I wont respond to the rest of the sentence, because its built on an obvious strawman that I have quoted here. Good day!
those all allow commercial use. so programmers who want to prevent commercial use cannot use CodeBerg.
The GPL and AGPL are both on the list that you're replying to.
https://choosealicense.com/appendix
so I will defer to that over your opinion.