You’re allowed, but as long as anyone else can do it for free, you can’t build a business model on selling it. At most you can sell something else (support, cloud compute, some solution that makes using it easier etc.).
Comment on "I support it only if it's open source" should be a more common viewpoint
semperverus@lemmy.world 1 day agoYou are allowed to charge money for open source.
Its the recipe that makes the food you’re eating that would need to be publicly available and free to redistribute.
balder1991@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
You can build a business model on selling it, but you can’t stop someone else doing the same.
hperrin@lemmy.ca 22 hours ago
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. What you said is true.
balder1991@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
It reminded me of an older writing about it:
Open source doesn’t make money because it wasn’t designed to make money
NukeNPave@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Canonical seems to make some decent money off of their services.
CriticalMiss@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Technically, according to the GPLv3 you don’t need to make the source code publically available. If you sell software with binaries then their source code must be included with it. If you’re Red Hat you can also add an additional ToS to the website that states if you buy the software you can’t freely distribute the source code you download from the website or you will be sued to oblivion.
Orygin@sh.itjust.works 18 hours ago
You cannot make restrictions to the distribution of the source code under the GPL
stsquad@lemmy.ml 21 hours ago
You must make the source available to anyone you distributed the binaries to. Where in Red Hats TOS does it say they will sue you? As far as I understand it the reserve the right to terminate the service you are paying for. But your rights to source for the binaries provided are not affected.
themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It’s not a perfect metaphor.
chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz 23 hours ago
None are.
hperrin@lemmy.ca 22 hours ago
Yep, you sure are. You also can’t stop someone from forking it and giving it away for free. See: Red Hat Enterprise Linux and AlmaLinux.
Money in open source is one of the biggest hurdles to it becoming the norm. IMHO, governments should fund more open source projects and fund them at higher levels. We have art grants because art improves society, and we should have an equal or higher amount of open source grants because open source improves society too.
sibachian@lemmy.ml 21 hours ago
many governments are currently trying to tear down art grants aren’t they tho?
people keep voting for the people trying to break everything and get shocked when it breaks.