You cannot have a "fully open" license which disallows commercial usage. Both the OSI and FSF definitions of "open source" and "free software" licenses would exclude such a license. Of course you can create a proprietary license which disallows commercial usage, but it won't be "fully open".
FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage, and software can be made simultaneously available under a separate (paid) commercial license if the authors wish. It's only the OSI that doesn't allow this.
> FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage
Can they? The FSF seems pretty strict on saying that commercial usage cannot be excluded.
> “Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. This policy is of fundamental importance—without this, free software could not achieve its aims.
> FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage
No, they can't, use-restricted licenses are non-free, by the FSF definition.
> software can be made simultaneously available under a separate (paid) commercial license if the authors wish.
This is true, but the Free license cannot be use-restricted, or it ceases to be a Free license (if the copyright owner, owing no obligation to any upstream licensor, does it, they could add the use restriction to a Free license, but it would by that act cease to be a free license; that violates Freedom 0.)
Hence the full circle to my original sarcastic joke. The OS definition serves a purpose of protecting users, even the bad ones, and maybe that worked when the "bad ones" where a minority with small impact.
But nowadays things have changed. The "bad ones" are big fish, and have enormous impact. A growing subset of devs now start looking elsewhere, and a plethora of non-OS licenses start to pop out. People still want to give their work for free, as long as it is not going to help someone else get rich while the original author doesn't see a cent.
One day, maybe, some organization will study the current landscape, and write a new set of definitions that are able to catch the spirit of this new situation. I guess it's just a natural part of how things evolve.
There is the Ethical Source movement, that aims to prevent use of software by bad people. The FLOSS community doesn't even have resources enough to enforce the widespread violations of copyleft licenses, so it seems even more unlikely that Ethical Source folks will be able to enforce their licenses. There are lots of other reasons for the FLOSS approach too.
It didn't really come across as a joke despite the /s, it seemed like an earnestly held opinion that is, TBH quite reasonable, although it isn't something I would agree with.
Read history guys. I even did a master thesis cf the two. The open source is against the free source by deliberating allow commerical software. Down vote you may, you cannot change the history. In fact learn seriously about that part, otherwise you miss the whole point of open source.
Well, whilst down voted let me repeat the thing - some Vp did not invent internet but he did let go of only education institute used that network. Now it allows commercial activities.
The mix is hard. The pure is ease. But without the mix and the complexity dealing with this, you do not have today open word of software and even internet.
And mix is hard. (And pure like free source is so pure it is a cult those days.)
