Too ambiguous. The main driver behind open source’s success is largely in some way, shape, or form "profit." Saying nobody can profit by using the project essentially limits its use to strict personal-use, and even then — it depends on how deep "profit" goes, and what "profit" means.
In any case, you can say that in a clearer way.
lproven•1h ago
Heh. We both said the same, here and on Lobsters. :-)
I have been speculating for over a year about a FOSS license that stipulates and specifies free use.
What I wanted to do was write one that was less absolute: take this, use it, do as thou wilt, so long as you do not accept money for it. But if you use it in such a way as to make money, you must pay us a percentage.
This is more absolute, but I approve.
lproven•1h ago
I like this. I like the style, the language, and the concept.
I wonder if it qualifies as a Free Software or open source licence?
ezekg•2h ago
In any case, you can say that in a clearer way.
lproven•1h ago
I have been speculating for over a year about a FOSS license that stipulates and specifies free use.
What I wanted to do was write one that was less absolute: take this, use it, do as thou wilt, so long as you do not accept money for it. But if you use it in such a way as to make money, you must pay us a percentage.
This is more absolute, but I approve.