[rgj]

TL;DR you need to fix this

Let's say I have an open source project under the GPLv3 which only contains a foo.txt.

"If you are creating an open source application under a license compatible with the GNU GPL license v3, you may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3."

So I can merge the BrowserBox Pro under GPLv3 to become part of my project.

Now I remove the foo.txt and my project will be a BrowserBox Pro clone under GPLv3 without the commercial restriction.

[laurent123456]

IANAL, but I'm wondering if this license really is GPL3? Because it's like a modified version of it - "GPL3 with a condition". From there, that possibly non-GPL3 license says that you can "use" the software, but not redistribute it.

But anyway it sounds like he needs to decide what he wants, and that's probably a non-open source license, if he doesn't want commercial use.

[rgj]

The license for the project is not GPLv3 but if my project is GPLv3 then the non-GPLv3 license for the project grants me a GPLv3 license if I include it.

Which shows the problem with this specific license in a single sentence.

[orra]

I think that's a little too reductive—foo.txt wasn't a real app.

Nonetheless, I agree with your broad point: that if somebody can use it under the GPL, they can redistribute it and then all those downstream users can use it under the GPL.

But I disagree there is anything to fix. It's copyleft FOSS but businesses are encouraged to buy a license. Everybody wins.

[rgj]

Ok, foo.sh then.

He needs to fix it - if he wants his license to enforce being paid for commercial use.