OT: non-commercial open source license?

[Christopher Browne]

On 1/8/06, Sy Ali <sy1234-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On 1/4/06, Aaron Vegh <aaronvegh-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > So the question became: is there an open source licence that would
> > restrict use to personal only, and not commercial?
>
> While everyone goes off into their tangents, if I ignore "open source"
> then the short answer is yes.. there is a license which will allow the
> source code to be re-distributed and not be available for commercial
> uses.

But that wasn't the question.  The question is whether or not there is
an open source license restricting use to "personal only."

The answer is that there isn't one; there can't be.

The usual definition of "open source" is found here...
<http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php>

Terms #5 and #6 between them reject this sort of discrimination
against commercial use.

Ergo, you can't find an "open source" license of any sort that will be
suitable, because the desired form of discrimination is incompatible
with the notion of "open source."

We're not going off on tangents; you, by changing subjects to non-OSS
licenses, are the one introducing tangents.
--
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/linux.html
"The true  measure of a  man is how he treats  someone who can  do him
absolutely no good." -- Samuel Johnson, lexicographer (1709-1784)
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml