41–50 of 111 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Creative Commons isn't a bar to being open source, but the Non-Commercial part certainly is. Definitely not OSS.
If the source code is publicly available, that is open source. What you mean is that it is not FOSS.
They went from Show HN to bust in 5 months: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41182414 I really wonder how that happened. Was there like no traction whatsoever? 5 months doesn't seem like an awfully long amount of time to give a product a chance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Creative Commons isn't a bar to being open source, but the Non-Commercial part certainly is. Definitely not OSS.
If the source code is publicly available, that is open source. What you mean is that it is not FOSS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the source code is publicly available, that is open source. What you mean is that it is not FOSS.
A typical distinction is „source available“ or „public source“ vs „open source“ (no restrictions on use other than potentially keeping the openness intact and attribution).
How exactly do you use what looks like work-planning software non-commerically? As for the license, it's their code and they can release it under whatever license they want, but they obviously shouldn't call it open source. Usually companies do this sort of thing to take advantage FOSS's reputation, but in this case it just looks like ignorance to me.
The Non-Commercial provision of the license is towards the app/code, not what the app is used for by end users. You would not be able to install it and sell users right to use it, but you would be able to install it in-house for your own employees.
None of us gets to say that there are some commercial purposes that are ok and some that are not. You have to go by what it says. Or put it this way, some day someone what wants to use it against you, can and will go by what it says, and they will be right and win that argument.
This license is really pretty bad because while they try to allow educational use, educational use is itself usually also commercial use. If you use it in a class that you charge for, if a school that charges tuition uses it, if a youtuber even so much as uses it in a video that has either ads or a sponsor... those are all conmmercial use of the software.
Relying on the the rights-holder to just not persue it, ever, including next year when the rights-holder is some new owner, is just gambling.
Trying to carve out non-commercial is just misguided and ultimately self-defeating in my opinion. It is better than purely traditionally closed software, but ultimately really not by much.
The primary value is, if you happen to rely on this software and can't avoid it, then having any form of access to the source is better than being helpless to the usual black box. At least you can fully document mysteries that aren't fully documented, let alone maybe being able to debug or customize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Creative Commons isn't a bar to being open source, but the Non-Commercial part certainly is. Definitely not OSS.
If the source code is publicly available, that is open source. What you mean is that it is not FOSS.
They went from Show HN to bust in 5 months: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41182414 I really wonder how that happened. Was there like no traction whatsoever? 5 months doesn't seem like an awfully long amount of time to give a product a chance.
They've been going for years
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Non-Commercial provision of the license is towards the app/code, not what the app is used for by end users. You would not be able to install it and sell users right to use it, but you would be able to install it in-house for your own employees.
That's not what non-commercial means.
That's exactly an n-th example of why this non-commercial clause is bogus since the very beginning of CC, and particularly unadapted for software code: no one is able to define clearly what commercial means, and what perimeter it applies to.
Selling the code? (you're a software editor) You could say it's covered/forbidden by the license.
Selling the service the code gives when it is running? (you're a PaaS) You could say too.
Selling anything unrelated to the code and the running app (say, oranges), but using the app to organise privately within a corporation? (you could be a shop owner installing the software for yourself and your team within your own building) 1/ the license says nothing about it, 2/ if it were covered and forbidden, how would it be even enforceable?