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

101–110 of 111 posts

Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

#101

Post by senko »

Juliate wrote: post #83
senko wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 compens…

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

Right, but this discussion is in context of software for planning work, not someone decorating an office.

Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

#102

Post by saghm »

gus_massa wrote: post #94
saghm wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Imagine a "champagne" you can't use for parties. [1] Ok, your birthday party and weeding are excluded. If you are in a dinner at home foe two, is it a party? Funerals? Let's buy a real champagne instead. [1] It has a microphone and a camera and GPS and use AI to detect parties. The data is send to the servers and stored securetely.

I don't drink, so I have no opinion on champagne, and I don't use Campsite, so I don't have any opinion on whether the license is reasonable for what it offers. All I know is that the words "open source" and "source available" would look and sound basically synonymous in pretty much any other context, and the common consensus that one of them apparently means something much more prescriptive will never make sense to me from a linguistic perspective.

Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

#103

Post by elkos »

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/

I'm really happy with Matrix chat. But it's more of a protocol than a sole implementation. The good people at Element are pretty neat too.

Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

#104

Post by abetusk »

dang wrote: post #100
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...

Ok, I've attempted to bypass this issue by editing the title above. Submitted title was "Campsite is now open source". If there's a better (more accurate and neutral) title, we can change it again.

The title accurately represented what the repository claimed.

From their README.md [0]:

> This is an open source version of the Campsite app.

[0] https://github.com/campsite/campsite/blob/10197238bbbefd9c9a...

Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

#105

Post by thedevilslawyer »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #88
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Very similarly, the access to the community and marketing benefits of open source are not free. The community give these projects their consideration and valuable time, in exchange for the freedoms they get. Projects can obviously choose not do this.

It's a 2-way street on value and time.

Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

#106

Post by Juliate »

senko wrote: post #101
Juliate wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 compens…

> You perfectly can print and display an NC image as a poster in your professional office, it's not "commercial". Right, but this discussion is in context of software for planning work, not someone decorating an office.

How is that different?

Planning work is not the work, it's something around the work, similar to a poster (that could very well present information valuable to the work, but still not be the work you're selling in the end).

Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

#107

Post by that_guy_iain »

thedevilslawyer wrote: post #105
that_guy_iain wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Very similarly, the access to the community and marketing benefits of open source are not free. The community give these projects their consideration and valuable time, in exchange for the freedoms they get. Projects can obviously choose not do this. It's a 2-way street on value and time.

> The community give these projects their consideration and valuable time, in exchange for the freedoms they get. Projects can obviously choose not do this.

No, the community does it to get to use the software for free. That's enough. The right to make a competing company that just uses the software is not in the minds of most community members.

I'm convinced the other people who care about this freedom don't contribute to anything.

Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

#108

Post by 47282847 »

saghm wrote: post #102
gus_massa wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a "champagne" you can't use for parties. [1] Ok, your birthday party and weeding are excluded. If you are in a dinner at home foe two, is it a party? Funerals? Let's buy a real champagne instead. [1] It has a microphone and a camera and GPS and use AI to detect parties. The data is send to the servers and stored securetely.

I don't drink, so I have no opinion on champagne, and I don't use Campsite, so I don't have any opinion on whether the license is reasonable for what it offers. All I know is that the words "open source" and "source available" would look and sound basically synonymous in pretty much any other context, and the common consensus that one of them apparently means something much more prescriptive will never make sense to…

You are going to have a difficult life experience if you cling to the idea that things have to make sense from a linguistic perspective where most others seem to have found acceptance in how things are interpreted and used in the real world.

Words are context sensitive. Openness here refers to the user freedoms, which go beyond the permission to read but not reuse.

Source that is merely available could be regarded as dangerous, if you happen to later copy ideas from the proprietary origin in your own implementation without even being aware of it. I could see the point in trying to stay away from it as programmer.

Good thing we’re not debating the term “free software“… ;-)

Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

#109

Post by [deleted] »

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'…

[deleted]

Re: Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

#110

Post by thedevilslawyer »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #107
thedevilslawyer wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very similarly, the access to the community and marketing benefits of open source are not free. The community give these projects their consideration and valuable time, in exchange for the freedoms they get. Projects can obviously choose not do this. It's a 2-way street on value and time.

> The community give these projects their consideration and valuable time, in exchange for the freedoms they get. Projects can obviously choose not do this. No, the community does it to get to use the software for free. That's enough. The right to make a competing company that just uses the software is not in the minds of most community members. I'm convinced the other people who care about this freedom don't contrib…

> That's enough

It's opt-in. No one forces a project to pick open source. They don't get to decide what's enough.

You clearly want open source to mean something other that what it by default means. A better place to put your efforts would be like folks over at fair.io, perhaps. It's not faring well IMO, but it's an honest take in the "no competing company" direction.

Post reply on HN