Does this mean that the software released under an OSI license with the Commons Clause attached [1] is considered "free" by their definition? Because CC allows all of the above, but prohibits commercialization.
If not, then perhaps they should elaborate on that aspect.
https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/four-freedoms/#0-use-the...
There are also specific comments about non-free source-available software here:
https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/#what-is-source-availabl...
> You are entitled to the use of any free software for any purpose, including commercial use – counter-intuitively, you can sell free software.
There are also sections which go into the utility of copyleft to mitigate some of this.
Might be worth going into more detail in a blog post.
In common parlance of people somewhat exposed to the software licensing it means "use for work", because of the proliferation of "personal use" and "commercial use" licensing duos.
Realizing that this clause also covers other people being allowed to sell your work is a non-trivial effort. I'd also argue that this would go very much against expectations of FOSS newcomers as it's pretty much counter-intuitive as it goes against the altruistic spirit of the FOSS. Hence the need to have it explained upfront and very clearly.
One of them will read through the website and get excited to give FOSS a try. He will put in the work, release the project only to see it getting reskinned and put up for sale. This will be as unexpected as it will be demoralizing. So this eventuality needs to disclosed upfront and not hid behind amorphous "commercial use" and misleading "a fee [...] for instance to cover the costs of bandwidth". Just be frank with those whom you are trying to convert, especially about the caveats.