[deleted]
Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license
71–80 of 111 posts
Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license
#72How 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.
> Usually companies do this sort of thing to take advantage FOSS's reputation
I would say they do it because it conveys to the average person that they can get the source code and modify if they want to. This whole source-available, etc nonsense is just confusing for everyone.
Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license
#73Campsite is not open source. From the LICENSE file on the repo [0]: > Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International [0] https://github.com/campsite/campsite/blob/dae5db8611e8adc057...
Honestly, I find this whole OSI open-source definition annoying. I'm pretty sure if this went to court a judge would say it's legally is open source because the source code is open. The fact, FOSS folk want to add a bunch of requirements to open source to make it harder for commercial software just stinks and that is really what it is. "You can't claim you're open source because you limit competitors using your code…
A judge would rule what "open source" means?
Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license
#74So Campsite got acqui-hired by Notion, tells their customers in a blog [1] something along the lines: "Thanks for all the fish, you've got 2 months to migrate to something else.". They could have open sourced it in a way which would have allowed customers to atleast maintain their own install. But instead they release it under a license which says "non-commercial". So even if you were to export your own data you can'…
Tale as old as time.
Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license
#75How 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.
You use it at work knowing that they'll never know and you'll never get sued.
Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without having a deeper look into it - could be a replacement for any non-profit or bigger sports club or whatever org that uses Slack or Zulip or whatever now. But that's about everything that comes to my mind...
Even that's a minefield, a non-profit that sells things (like a sports club selling merch) is still potentially engaging in commercial activity.
Good point. I suppose many people, like me, would not think about that.. but.. IANAL but at least in Germany I think there's often some correlation of "not profit-oriented" and "no commercial purpose" - I mean, every time you let someone pay for membership in your club, it can be seen as commercial, but mostly not.
Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license
#77do we need a KilledByNotion list /hj? notion bought skiff and that burnt me
I just read the Skiff announcement and they give you a very tight deadline for email forwarding. Good thing I'm too bitter and jaded to get in to any new saas offering, especially new and hip ones. This can't burn me. Anymore.
Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.
Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license
#78Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what non-commercial means.
Disagree. 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)…
> 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.
Agree with you on this one and I'd go step further: CC licences in general are poor fit for software.
> 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)
CC disagree with that interpretation: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpre... (also https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Defining_Noncommercial).
Excerpt (that I think is most relevant, but it's definitely a nuanced issue):
> uses by for-profit companies are typically considered more commercial [...] one exception to this pattern is in relation to uses by individuals that are personal or private in nature
Based on this, I think the common agreement would be that this is commercial use.
> how would it be even enforceable?
That's not a point for ignoring the license. If you download pirated movies, games, or other software, it's very unlikely you'll get caught, but you're still committing a crime.
However in this case, it actually can be enforcable. If the organization is eg. a startup that raises venture funding or is getting acquired, legal due dilligence will involve examination of all licences for software used.
Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license
#80How 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.
> Usually companies do this sort of thing to take advantage FOSS's reputation I would say they do it because it conveys to the average person that they can get the source code and modify if they want to. This whole source-available, etc nonsense is just confusing for everyone.
> because it conveys to the average person that they can get the source code and modify if they want to.
But not use it for its intended purpose, which is kinda important.