11–20 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is Open Source, but under a Non-Free License (PolyForm Noncommercial License 1.0.0).
The PolyForm Noncommercial License 1.0.0 is not an Open Source license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is Open Source, but under a Non-Free License (PolyForm Noncommercial License 1.0.0).
The PolyForm Noncommercial License 1.0.0 is not an Open Source license.
Here's our post that explains our licensing in detail: https://blog.getumbrel.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The PolyForm Noncommercial License 1.0.0 is not an Open Source license.
Licensing is a nuanced subject so we've written a detailed post on it. But in short, our license grants you the same rights that come with an open source license, except the right to sell or commercialize Umbrel. Here's our post that explains our licensing in detail: https://blog.getumbrel.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about...
These are all rights I have with Open Source software that is denied by your non-commercial license. Reading your blog post, you seem to not understand Open Source nor do you seem to understand the implications of your own license very well.
If some one is going through the trouble of self hosting, why would they want to use a closed source proprietary OS to do it? Most of the apps available for this are open source, so why not host them on an open source system and not have any vendor lock-in?
Umbrel's source code is public and there's no vendor lock-in: https://github.com/getumbrel/umbrel
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Umbrel's source code is public and there's no vendor lock-in: https://github.com/getumbrel/umbrel
The license forbids me to hire another vendor to service the product. That is the definition of vendor lock-in.
Where in the license does it forbid such a thing? Commercial use != an individual paying for third party support/service/development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The PolyForm Noncommercial License 1.0.0 is not an Open Source license.
Licensing is a nuanced subject so we've written a detailed post on it. But in short, our license grants you the same rights that come with an open source license, except the right to sell or commercialize Umbrel. Here's our post that explains our licensing in detail: https://blog.getumbrel.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about...
Yes, your license means that individual users can make little patches to customize the product to their needs, and even share these customizations with other users. That's great!
But the license effectively prohibits borrowing code from your codebase for use in other projects, meaning your code does not become part of the aether of Open Source code that anyone can build upon. That's a very important part of what it means to be "Open Source".
It also effectively prevents any large-scale modification or forking effort, since maintaining patches as the underlying codebase evolves is a hard job, and the license prohibits people from funding such effort. If users want timely security updates, they will need to stick close to your version of the codebase. So the lock-in is there.
Again, this is all a perfectly justified direction for you to take. I don't blame you at all, and I definitely understand that it's Amazon's fault that we cannot have nice things. But it's not Open Source.
On a tangentially-related note, a little tip: You have defined all noncommercial organizations -- including education, public research, and government -- as being permitted users. That may be dangerous. I was the founder of Sandstorm, and these organizations were exactly the ones most interested in paying for our product -- literally the only big sales we ever made were a couple universities, a big research org, and a government. Despite being non-profit, these orgs have lots of money and a need for self-hosting.
I think the overlap of folks who want to self host and folks who don't already use a preferred Linux distro or Windows is quite small.