Not for commercial use licenses / seperate repo? (was Re: angband license)

[Hans de Goede]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Wart wrote:
> 
>> While I was packaging angband, I came across this questionable license
>> text.  Before I spend too much time with this, I wanted to verify that
>> the first paragraph is valid.  In particular, it says that the software
>> can be copied and distributed for non-for-profit purposes, that is, not
>> for commercial purposes.  Does this disqualify it as an OSI-compatible
>> license?
>>
>>  
>>
> Yes it does.  It is not a OSI compatible since the OSI definition, claus 
> 6 disallows a OSI license to discriminate against fields of endeavor. 
> Refer to http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php for more details.
> 

Indeed it does. This subject actually comes up quite frequent and it 
seems relevant in the non-free FE repo discussion we had on the -devel list.

Now I'm no fan of non-free software, but IMHO opinion I think it is fair 
if people give something away for free including source et all that they 
disallow commercial use.

So I would like to propose creating a not for commercial use repo under 
the fedora umbrella. I know some people are afraid that this will cause 
pollution of the really free parts, so this repo would have to follow 
the following rules:
-not enabled in default FC repo config
-may not be used by FE packages to depend on, IOW any package depending
  on a package in non-commercial automaticly must itself be in
  non-commercial.
-for the allowed non-commercial use it should be 100% free, so derative
  works, redistributing (modfied) versions and (modified) source should
  all be allowed.

And maybe:
-the license should explicitly state, that a license for commercial use 
can be had by contacting (and paying) the copyright holder.

Regards,

Hans