"Permission is hereby granted, [snip] including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software"
The right to sell the software is part of the open source and free software definitions. A license needs to specify this, because by default copyright law does not grant this right. This homebrew license does not allow selling the software, thus it fails to be open source.
Failing to meet this part of the definition is why MAME wasn't open source either until last week.
Anything not explicitly allowed is forbidden. That's how copyright law works. "All rights reserved" is the default. You don't even have to claim it. All rights are reserved unless you relinquish them.
> Anything not explicitly allowed is forbidden. That's how copyright law works.
Well, no, copyright law works by "anything explicitly made exclusive to the copyright holder by law, and not explicitly allowed by either other provisions of law or the copyright holder is forbidden, unless its in the rather ill-defined -- far from explicitly delimited -- domain of 'fair-use', or implicitly permitted by the copyright holder under implicit license, or..."
"Permission is hereby granted, [snip] including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software"
The right to sell the software is part of the open source and free software definitions. A license needs to specify this, because by default copyright law does not grant this right. This homebrew license does not allow selling the software, thus it fails to be open source.
Failing to meet this part of the definition is why MAME wasn't open source either until last week.