Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 111 posts

Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

#81

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #70
abetusk wrote: post #7

Campsite 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…

> Honestly, I find this whole OSI open-source definition annoying.

Fair enough; I agree that having that one organization be the sole decider of Open Source is weird, so I'll happily accept as open source anything that the FSF or DFSG approve.

> "You can't claim you're open source because you limit competitors using your code for free" Pfft.

Correct. If you're trying to get the marketing advantage and let other people give you free work, then you get to play fair and other people also benefit. That's what those words mean.

Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

#82

Post by saghm »

eptcyka wrote: post #60
saghm wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only "open source" if it's from the OSI region of France. Otherwise, it's just "sparkling available".

The difference here is more important than that.

I'm sure the people who insist on the proper usage of the term "champagne" claim their linguistic crusade is important too!

Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

#83

Post by Juliate »

senko wrote: post #79
Juliate wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> CC disagree with that interpretation: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpre... (also https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Defining_Noncommercial).

That's not what I understand from these pages (that only reinforces that even to CC, NonCommercial is not a clear criteria).

They also note NonCommercial as “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.” which perfectly matches my 3rd case above.

For instance, you perfectly can print and display an NC image as a poster in your professional office, it's not "commercial".

> That's not a point for ignoring the license.

It's definitely an argument to ignore this part of the license: an unenforceable item is effectively void.

> If you download pirated movies, games, or other software, it's very unlikely you'll get caught, but you're still committing a crime.

Beware, that's different here. Downloading/uploading pirated items is illegal. Here, the NonCommercial clause is so ambiguous that even CC doesn't know how to put it. So its enforcement is even further delicate and open to interpretation.

Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

#84

Post by normie3000 »

j5155 wrote: post #25

Campsite team, if you happen to be reading this: consider whether a more permissive license still meeting the FOSS definition, like GPL or AGPL, would better fit your needs. GPL means that anyone who modifies the source code, or integrates it into a larger work, has to release the modified version. So this would ensure that everyone’s contributions continue to help the wider community. As a side effect, it would also…

> GPL means that anyone who modifies the source code, or integrates it into a larger work, has to release the modified version.

Is this accurate? I thought GPL only required distributing the source alongside binaries. If you're running GPL code as a web service, I don't think there's a requirement to release the source to your users.

Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

#85

Post by awkwardpotato »

normie3000 wrote: post #84
j5155 wrote: post #25

Campsite team, if you happen to be reading this: consider whether a more permissive license still meeting the FOSS definition, like GPL or AGPL, would better fit your needs. GPL means that anyone who modifies the source code, or integrates it into a larger work, has to release the modified version. So this would ensure that everyone’s contributions continue to help the wider community. As a side effect, it would also…

> GPL means that anyone who modifies the source code, or integrates it into a larger work, has to release the modified version. Is this accurate? I thought GPL only required distributing the source alongside binaries. If you're running GPL code as a web service, I don't think there's a requirement to release the source to your users.

In this case, you would want the Affero General Public License (AGPL) which specifically has a carve-out (in?) for web servers. Section 13, "Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License." [0]

[0] "[...] your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (...) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version"

Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

#86

Post by cwbuilds »

ensignavenger wrote: post #65
jsiepkes wrote: post #61

So 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'…

Which is why strongly favoring products that are already real open source is the best business decision.

Is there an 'open source Slack' type thing anywhere?

This is the closest I've found- https://mattermost.com/

Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

#87

Post by that_guy_iain »

actionfromafar wrote: post #73
that_guy_iain wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes. For example, if I advertised my software as open source and you sued for false advertising.

What do you think they don't rule on what things mean?

Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

#88

Post by that_guy_iain »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #81
that_guy_iain wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Honestly, I find this whole OSI open-source definition annoying. Fair enough; I agree that having that one organization be the sole decider of Open Source is weird, so I'll happily accept as open source anything that the FSF or DFSG approve. > "You can't claim you're open source because you limit competitors using your code for free" Pfft. Correct. If you're trying to get the marketing advantage and let other peopl…

> Correct. If you're trying to get the marketing advantage and let other people give you free work, then you get to play fair and other people also benefit. That's what those words mean.

This free work everyone talks about is not free. They need to maintain it, they need to review it, they need to baby-step new contributors, etc. That costs money.

Not to mention, most aren't doing it to get free work. They're giving stuff away and folk are crying because they can't use someone else's work as free work.

Look at any major open source product and you'll see nearly all the commits are done by paid employees. Open source is built on free work is a lie. Open Source is largely paid for.

Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

#89

Post by srid »

cwbuilds wrote: post #86
ensignavenger wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why strongly favoring products that are already real open source is the best business decision.

Is there an 'open source Slack' type thing anywhere? This is the closest I've found- https://mattermost.com/

If you are willing to explore a hybrid model of chat, there is Zulip: https://github.com/zulip/zulip
Post reply on HN