11–20 of 200 posts
> Open Source The CC-NC-SA-4.0 license isn't an Open Source Definition compliant license, since it discriminates against a field of use (commercial applications). https://github.com/ClemensElflein/OpenMower/blob/main/LICENS... https://opensourcedefinition.org/ A reminder, open source means surrendering your monopoly over commercial exploitation: https://drewdevault.com/2021/01/20/FOSS-is-to-surrender-your...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worth noting that the project is CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 however it comes with a notice that other licenses are available if you content them directly. So it may not be open source under the strict definition however the project is also not staunchly anti-commercial. > Feel free to use the design in your private/educational projects, but don't try to sell the design or products based on it without getting my consent fir…
It's simply not open source. It doesn't meet the definition. It's co-opting the term to call it open source. This has been debated and settled. What people mean by open source or free software has a well agreed upon definition, and this isn't it.
Pure open source is also not a sustainable business model. You have to be open core or non-commercial, otherwise anyone and everyone can steal your lunch.
You're asking for the right to compete when they've given you every other single right there is. That's just not nice.
> Open Source The CC-NC-SA-4.0 license isn't an Open Source Definition compliant license, since it discriminates against a field of use (commercial applications). https://github.com/ClemensElflein/OpenMower/blob/main/LICENS... https://opensourcedefinition.org/ A reminder, open source means surrendering your monopoly over commercial exploitation: https://drewdevault.com/2021/01/20/FOSS-is-to-surrender-your...
[flagged]
I understand (tho not agree with you) up until this point. Don’t forget Wordpress was not originally Wordpress, you would say they “basically lifted b2/cafepress wholesale and gave nothing back”. Wordpress wouldn’t exist otherwise.
> Open Source The CC-NC-SA-4.0 license isn't an Open Source Definition compliant license, since it discriminates against a field of use (commercial applications). https://github.com/ClemensElflein/OpenMower/blob/main/LICENS... https://opensourcedefinition.org/ A reminder, open source means surrendering your monopoly over commercial exploitation: https://drewdevault.com/2021/01/20/FOSS-is-to-surrender-your...
[flagged]
Funnily enough, the CC BY-SA-NC is not a fair source license, as it doesn’t include a provision for delayed open source publication. It is quite important, actually:
> DOSP ensures that if a Fair Source company goes out of business, or develops its products in an undesired direction, the community or another company can pick up and move forward. Will this be meaningful in practice? Again, time will tell. – https://fair.io/about/
But I do agree with the sentiment otherwise.
> Open Source The CC-NC-SA-4.0 license isn't an Open Source Definition compliant license, since it discriminates against a field of use (commercial applications). https://github.com/ClemensElflein/OpenMower/blob/main/LICENS... https://opensourcedefinition.org/ A reminder, open source means surrendering your monopoly over commercial exploitation: https://drewdevault.com/2021/01/20/FOSS-is-to-surrender-your...
[flagged]