Do you have an example? I am pretty sure that a FOSS license which requires companies to pay is impossible.

Open Source guarantees that anyone can give the software to a company for free:

"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

And it guarantees that the company can then use it freely:

"The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business [...]"

Quotes from the Open Source Definition.

None. Those things are incompatible with each other.

Never read something more wrong about the subject. I sounds like you don't actually know what Free Software refers to, and that it has nothing to do with the price.

Short and not completely true answer: Free Software and Open Source are the same thing, just with different reasoning behind them. Hence "FOSS" and "FLOSS" are also used, which combine both terms.

https://umap.openstreetmap.de/en/

How would encryption even make sense here? Up to the server, everything is protected via TLS. And if you don't trust the server provider, you can encrypt all you want, but they can just read out the RAM of the VPS or they could have backdoored the bare metal hardware to do the same. As long as the server has to somehow work with the data in question, the decryption keys have to be somewhere in there. And what do you mean by code integration? We're talking FOSS here, how could someone prevent me from removing any "is everything encrypted?" checks in Mastodon? Also, what does the encryption on other federated instances even matter? Without having any in depth knowledge about Mastodon, your user agent will hardly be sent to other instances, and when and what you posted is meant to be visible.

It can't be included in the official F-Droid repos, as it is not Open Source.

It's hardly better than any other proprietary software as the FUTO Temporary License does not allow users to make modifications and share them with non-programmers. They could include ads or spyware and no one would be allowed to strip that out and share the result with others.

They also clearly forbid redistribution "directed towards [...] monetary compensation". But F-Droid has to be compensated for their server costs as well, and they ask for donations as they should be. That's why limiting commercial redistribution alone is a huge issue that would keep it from ever being called "Open Source" or "Free Software".

It can't be included in the official F-Droid repos, as it is not Open Source.

It's hardly better than any other proprietary software as the FUTO Temporary License does not allow users to make modifications and share them with non-programmers. They could include ads or spyware and no one would be allowed to strip that out and share the result with others.

They also clearly forbid redistribution "directed towards [...] monetary compensation". But F-Droid has to be compensated for their server costs as well, and they ask for donations as they should be. That's why limiting commercial redistribution alone is a huge issue that would keep it from ever being called "Open Source" or "Free Software".

I've used it quite extensivly, big fan. It asks for further details on objects that have already been mapped, which also reveals things that don't exist anymore. It turns mapping into a really fun game with currently 163 different quests. The app also regularly asks you to verify opening hours or confirm the existence of certain objects. That being said, I almost always use it in conjunction with a real map editor, to add new stuff I find or to make more complex edits.

What's missing from the existing ones?

Kern ist Blähung! --Bogennutzer

Das stimmt auch, freie Weichware darf natürlich kommerziell vertrieben werden. Aber die nullte Freiheit ist, dass eine solche Anwendung zu jedem Zweck eingesetzt werden darf. Es darf also kein Unterschied gemacht werden zwischen privatem und kommerziellem Einsatz, letzterer darf also nicht ausgeschlossen werden, das meinte ich.

Den Quellcode darf man übrigens genauso verkaufen wie die kompilierten Programme. Aber es gibt in der GPL ein paar Einschränkungen bezüglich des Preises den man verlangen darf, wenn man Kunden erst nur die Binärdatei ausgehändigt hat und die dann im Anschluss ihr Recht auf die Soße einfordern.