Free/Commercial is not clear distinction

[iangilfillan]

I assume the free/commercial distinction is meant to differentiate between proprietary, and open source licenses? It's not a good distinction to use, as open source projects can most certainly be commercial, and the term "free" is ambiguous. Many of the software listings use the distinction "proprietary" and "open source", or better, "proprietary" and the specific license, e.g. GPL. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_shopping_cart_software#General_information

[github-actions[bot]]

Thank you for opening your first issue on Awesome MariaDB! If you wish, feel free to create a related pull request.

[federico-razzoli]

@iangilfillan Good point. Free was meant as in "freedom", not "free beer", to use the GNU project's words. But I'll use the term open source instead. Indicating the license would be even better, but some software includes libraries with different licenses, so those who are interested in the licensing details should probably check themselves.

[federico-razzoli]

@iangilfillan will this bug be fixed if we use the following dictionary?

• FOSS: Free and/or open source.
• SOURCE AVAILABLE: Proprietary, but the whole source code is public.
• PROPRIETARY: Proprietary, downloadable.
• CLOUD: The vendor offers this software as a service.

And any combination, eg: FOSS, CLOUD.

EDIT: We can also use the license name & version, where only one version applies and it's sufficiently famous and it's obvious that it's open source (eg: GPL 2.1, AGPL 3, Apache License 2, BSD. For other licenses it's better to let the reader look at the software website.

[federico-razzoli]

@iangilfillan do you have any feedback on the above?

[iangilfillan]

Yes, that should work.

[federico-razzoli]

All occurrences of "free" and "commercial" have been replaced.

In most places, the specific license has been indicated where applicable.

Please reopen this bug if something doesn't look right.