Status of "not for commercial use license" discussion?

[Hans de Goede]

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le dimanche 12 juin 2005 à 09:24 -0400, seth vidal a écrit :
> 
>>On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 03:09 -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I would object to it simply because such a license is really not a free
>>>license at all.
>>>It also can have a viral effect if other software makes use of it.
>>>
>>>One should be able to use Fedora and Extras without needing to worry
>>>about what software they have installed and whether or not their usage
>>>violated the terms of usage.
>>
>>+1
>>
>>Fedora is a distribution of free and open source software.
> 
> 
> +10
> 
> Too many people already confuse FOSS with freeware and shareware without
> muddying the waters any further.
> 

We're talking about opensource here, this is no different from QT 
choosing GPL for a library because they don't want their work used for 
profit. Except these aren't libraries but programs so that path is not 
an option.

But I in know way intented to restart the discussion about this, we 
already had that last time (see archives) thats why I added the part 
about the software meting all FOSS criteria except that it may not be 
redistributed for a profit.

Now I hope that we can stop this thread, except for replies from the 
people who where busy investigating the legal issues about this and 
talking about this with RH-legal.

Regards,

Hans