jeinzi

Do you have an example? I am pretty sure that a FOSS license which requires companies to pay is impossible.

Open Source guarantees that anyone can give the software to a company for free:

"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

And it guarantees that the company can then use it freely:

"The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business [...]"

Quotes from the Open Source Definition.

None. Those things are incompatible with each other.

I've never used InqScribe nor any other subtitle tool, but alternativeto.net has a list of alternatives like Kainote or SubtitleEdit: https://alternativeto.net/software/kainote/?license=opensource There's even a short Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_subtitle_editors

Never read something more wrong about the subject. I sounds like you don't actually know what Free Software refers to, and that it has nothing to do with the price.

Short and not completely true answer: Free Software and Open Source are the same thing, just with different reasoning behind them. Hence "FOSS" and "FLOSS" are also used, which combine both terms.

Ich kann das nicht unkommentiert lassen! https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leerzeichen_in_Komposita

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzdsmAWOB-w

https://umap.openstreetmap.de/en/

How would encryption even make sense here? Up to the server, everything is protected via TLS. And if you don't trust the server provider, you can encrypt all you want, but they can just read out the RAM of the VPS or they could have backdoored the bare metal hardware to do the same. As long as the server has to somehow work with the data in question, the decryption keys have to be somewhere in there. And what do you mean by code integration? We're talking FOSS here, how could someone prevent me from removing any "is everything encrypted?" checks in Mastodon? Also, what does the encryption on other federated instances even matter? Without having any in depth knowledge about Mastodon, your user agent will hardly be sent to other instances, and when and what you posted is meant to be visible.

Great idea, that's what I would probably do as well if I wanted to make a commercial game.

Just remember, if you want something to be "Open Source" or "Free Software", the license can't prohibit commercial use [0][1]. If you really want others to be able to continue maintaining the project after you have stopped, they need to have permission to recoup their costs for servers, physical copies and to get paid for their development time. (Open Source) development needs to be financially sustainable; and if that is forbidden for future developers, it's not a community project anymore, i.e. not Open Source.

Also, if by "attribution, no commercial use" you mean some Creative Commons license, they explicitly discourage use of their licenses for software [3].

[0] https://opensource.org/osd

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#selling

[3] https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software

It can't be included in the official F-Droid repos, as it is not Open Source.

It's hardly better than any other proprietary software as the FUTO Temporary License does not allow users to make modifications and share them with non-programmers. They could include ads or spyware and no one would be allowed to strip that out and share the result with others.

They also clearly forbid redistribution "directed towards [...] monetary compensation". But F-Droid has to be compensated for their server costs as well, and they ask for donations as they should be. That's why limiting commercial redistribution alone is a huge issue that would keep it from ever being called "Open Source" or "Free Software".

It can't be included in the official F-Droid repos, as it is not Open Source.

It's hardly better than any other proprietary software as the FUTO Temporary License does not allow users to make modifications and share them with non-programmers. They could include ads or spyware and no one would be allowed to strip that out and share the result with others.

They also clearly forbid redistribution "directed towards [...] monetary compensation". But F-Droid has to be compensated for their server costs as well, and they ask for donations as they should be. That's why limiting commercial redistribution alone is a huge issue that would keep it from ever being called "Open Source" or "Free Software".