There's no "the OSI license". There's a set of requirements OSI defined to classify software licenses as either Open Source or not.
it clearly states “the license shall not require a royalty or other fee”
Exactly. To be considered Open Source, the license can not require any fee (among other things). Public Domain code (let's assume CC0 here to avoid any confusion on its legal status) does not require any fee, therefore it can be considered Open Source.
it’s an attempt to preserve and protect the open-sourceness of open source
Yes, that's why the licenses that require the code to stay free are permitted to be called Open Source. It's very clearly not a requirement.
OSI Open Source code does not permit redistribution with a restrictive license.
Of course it does. Please read the OSI guidelines once again, from the beginning till the end. Throw away your previously held misconceptions.
It’s the redistribution license that cannot request a fee. Public domain allows the redistributor to charge a fee. You’re getting confused about the author’s license vs the redistribution license.
let's assume CC0 here to avoid any confusion on its legal status) does not require any fee, therefore it can be considered Open Source.
...because of the explicit no-patent-grant clause. Yes, I'm perfectly aware, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned that earlier myself ;)
Public domain allows the redistributor to charge a fee.
So do Open Source licenses. You can sell software on GPL, MIT etc. with absolutely no issues. You just need to allow others to redistribute it further without any additional fees (but if they wish, they can charge a fee too).
It's in fact one of the requirements for it to stay Open Source. You are literally guaranteed to have a right to charge a fee with Open Source software. Some people would like to change that and to consider licenses that add additional restrictions like disallowing commercial usage as Open Source too, which is why the article we're commenting under has been written in the first place.
Comments
There's no "the OSI license". There's a set of requirements OSI defined to classify software licenses as either Open Source or not.
Exactly. To be considered Open Source, the license can not require any fee (among other things). Public Domain code (let's assume CC0 here to avoid any confusion on its legal status) does not require any fee, therefore it can be considered Open Source.
Yes, that's why the licenses that require the code to stay free are permitted to be called Open Source. It's very clearly not a requirement.
Of course it does. Please read the OSI guidelines once again, from the beginning till the end. Throw away your previously held misconceptions.
It’s the redistribution license that cannot request a fee. Public domain allows the redistributor to charge a fee. You’re getting confused about the author’s license vs the redistribution license.
Poor choice. CC0 is not considered open source by OSI. https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero
...because of the explicit no-patent-grant clause. Yes, I'm perfectly aware, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned that earlier myself ;)
So do Open Source licenses. You can sell software on GPL, MIT etc. with absolutely no issues. You just need to allow others to redistribute it further without any additional fees (but if they wish, they can charge a fee too).
See: https://opensource.org/faq#selling
It's in fact one of the requirements for it to stay Open Source. You are literally guaranteed to have a right to charge a fee with Open Source software. Some people would like to change that and to consider licenses that add additional restrictions like disallowing commercial usage as Open Source too, which is why the article we're commenting under has been written in the first place.