zlacker

> the OSI definition only deals with the way software is developed and distributed, not how software contributes to the common good

So it should be the FSF's definition of free software, https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

>>fsflov+(OP)
RMS famously had no problem with dual licensing. The definition should. None of the GPL licenses protect from bad stewardship focused on maintaining commercial viability of some product either.