I just recently gave an answer on this stack exchange mentioning the relatively new, source-available, but not (strictly) open-source, Commons Clause License. The original question asks if it is possible to license software as open source, but for non-commercial use only. I do realise that under the 'strict' definition of open source, the only possible answer is simply: No.
Another user, I am quite sure in good faith (presumably through the review queues?), immediately added a comment that my answer was 'off topic'? Were they - even technically - right?
- If the name 'opensource' of this stack exchange is read literally, then presumably even licenses which are approved by the FSF but not the OSI would be 'off topic'...
- If I had tried to ask or answer something about 'source-available' licenses on some other stack exchange site, I'm pretty sure I'd have been told I was off topic there, and quite probably redirected to here
So I'd hope that it is in some sense officially the case that all of the following are reasonably on topic here:
- Open source software licenses as defined by the OSI
- Free software licenses as defined by the FSF
- Other closely related concepts, such as:
- Whether, and if so how, it's possible (not opinion-based!) to do something similar to an open/free license, but with restrictions against commercial use
- Other source-available, but not strictly free or open source, licenses
- Dual licensing
Can anyone help?