[lazyloop]

You're mixing up Open Source and Free Software, those two are not the same.

[eindiran]

There is a difference between Open Source and merely making the source code available. See the definition here: https://opensource.org/osd

In particular, this comes into conflict with 1, Free Redistribution.

[diegorbaquero]

It doesn't. Anyone is able to redistribute these Redis Modules under the same license.

[dragonwriter]

> You're mixing up Open Source and Free Software, those two are not the same.

There is an ideological difference between the movements, but very little practical definitions between the OSI Open Source definition and the FSF Free Software definition. Yes, they are worded differently, but in practice they are virtually identical (I don't think a single license has been reviewed by both entities with a different conclusion.)

[ramshorns]

They have different ideologies behind them, but they refer to almost exactly the same class of software. A license that doesn't allow commercial use is proprietary and closed source.

[Spivak]

Forbidding commercial use doesn't make something closed source but it does make it proprietary. The compliment of Open Source isn't closed source.

[theyinwhy]

Open Source software can be proprietary, see all the github repos without license information.

What you are referring to is "Free Software", as defined by Stallman.