Hello,
Could you please update the FAQ which would cover the uncertainty about the licenses like Common Clause i.e allowed or not, why and a clear reasoning without references to FSF or OSI.
I don't want to start a holywar or whatever... I was reading a FAQ and Terms of Services in order to understand what is going on and I am a bit confused. I am running my own coderepo for organization (hosting it in Germany) where I keep a Rust crates because I am not comfortable with Github/lab. I am tired managing the server and I am looking for managed alternative in EU and I will be ok to rather donate the money to i.e Codeberg for hosting. I am using mostly EUPL-1.2 and BSD licenses which is ok here but for large projects I use Common Clause License 1.0 with EUPL or MPL which seems is not ok. I searched over the Codeberg to find out, "for how much Common Clause is a really nightmare" and did not found neither the info, nor statements except that this is not Free in terms of Freedom rather than gratis in terms of FSF.
In my humble opinion, which relies on formal logic not logic of idealists from FSF or OSI, the Common Clause does not limit any freedoms to share, modify or distribute as long as it stays free (in terms of gratis) for everyone. It disallows to sell or offer a service based on software which was initially produced as never to be sold. The right to sell is not a freedom and can not be granted because code is non-material value and no one can grant it for you (otherwise it is communism). Also because it follows not the idea of benefiting for all but benefiting for a private person or organization where the code (non-material value) is converted into profit by selling which is a financial operation. In other words, if you grow an apple tree in your garden and I will come, grab the apples and leave a notice that, well, my friend, this is your territory and you spent water, electricity, your precious time but I want to fly far to space on a large rocket which looks like genital and to achieve this I will sell your apples.
Anyway, there are wars and criminals which leads to sanctions which you must follow even if you are individual which breaks the license terms in terms of distribution. If you won't probably your software will be used to kill civilians and at least morally, you will be guilty. In terms of law too.
I do not support neither OSI nor FSF and never donated to them (I donated to authors/foundations directly like FreeBSD...). In my opinion those organizations are no longer useful as both were initially and both are quite questionable, existing only for their own profit, limiting my freedoms (well I can not use Codeberg which is located in EU, but Codeberg follows the code of organizations which outside the EU). But this is my opinion that is why I am not here. But if you could update the FAQ which would cover the question about the licenses like Common Clause which are free in both cases, but protects the author from being robbed. If this is a Free software then it should be FREE in terms of Gratis and if this is Freedom software this must be called Freedom software, not Free software. If sources are published then this is OPEN software for public or closed from public. This useless organizations made everything to distort understanding to one's advantage.
Thank you.
p/s The answer because FSF or OSI thinks so, this is bad position and not an explanation (it explains something else). Tomorrow they will decide that EUPL is not Free or whatever like FSF decided that EUPL is not compatible with his GPL.
p/ss I am not going to argue with anyone on importance of FSF or OSI. Both are organizations located in USA, but I am in EU. And somehow I am dealing without them.
### Comment
Hello,
Could you please update the FAQ which would cover the uncertainty about the licenses like Common Clause i.e allowed or not, why and a clear reasoning without references to FSF or OSI.
> I don't want to start a `holywar` or whatever... I was reading a FAQ and Terms of Services in order to understand what is going on and I am a bit confused. I am running my own coderepo for organization (hosting it in Germany) where I keep a Rust crates because I am not comfortable with Github/lab. I am tired managing the server and I am looking for managed alternative in EU and I will be ok to rather donate the money to i.e Codeberg for hosting. I am using mostly EUPL-1.2 and BSD licenses which is ok here but for large projects I use Common Clause License 1.0 with EUPL or MPL which seems is not ok. I searched over the Codeberg to find out, "for how much Common Clause is a really nightmare" and did not found neither the info, nor statements except that this is not Free in terms of Freedom rather than gratis in terms of FSF.
>
> In **my humble opinion**, which relies on formal logic not logic of idealists from FSF or OSI, the Common Clause does not limit any freedoms to share, modify or distribute as long as it stays free (in terms of gratis) for everyone. It disallows to sell or offer a service based on software which was initially produced as **never to be sold**. The **right to sell** is not a freedom and can not be granted because code is **non-material value** and no one can grant it for you (otherwise it is communism). Also because it follows not the idea of benefiting for all but benefiting for a private person or organization where the code (non-material value) is converted into profit by selling which is a financial operation. In other words, if you grow an apple tree in your garden and I will come, grab the apples and leave a notice that, well, my friend, this is your territory and you spent water, electricity, your precious time but I want to fly far to space on a large rocket which looks like genital and to achieve this I will sell your apples.
> Anyway, there are wars and criminals which leads to **sanctions** which you **must** follow even **if you are individual** which **breaks the license terms** in terms of distribution. If you won't probably your software will be used to kill civilians and at least morally, you will be guilty. In terms of law too.
>
> I do not support neither OSI nor FSF and never donated to them (I donated to authors/foundations directly like FreeBSD...). In my opinion those organizations are no longer useful as both were initially and both are quite questionable, existing only for their own profit, limiting my freedoms (well I can not use Codeberg which is located in EU, but Codeberg follows the code of organizations which outside the EU). But this is my opinion that is why I am not here. But if you **could update the FAQ which would cover the question about the licenses like Common Clause which are free in both cases, but protects the author from being robbed.** If this is a Free software then it should be FREE in terms of Gratis and if this is Freedom software this must be called Freedom software, not Free software. If sources are published then this is OPEN software for public or closed from public. This useless organizations made everything to distort understanding to one's advantage.
>
> Thank you.
>
> p/s The answer because FSF or OSI thinks so, this is bad position and not an explanation (it explains something else). Tomorrow they will decide that EUPL is not Free or whatever like FSF decided that EUPL is not compatible with his GPL.
>
> p/ss I am not going to argue with anyone on importance of FSF or OSI. Both are organizations located in USA, but I am in EU. And somehow I am dealing without them.