41–50 of 63 posts
Can you clarify if the server is also open source? If not, a more accurate headline would be "Open Sourcing Kinopio Client"; which is a very different thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We definitely need a term, more accurate than source-available, that describes software whose usage and improvements can only orbit in non-commercial space. For non-software creative works, we have Creative Commons NonCommercial licenses.
Why? We all know what "source available" mean and that it's not really open-source.
1. Release the source only for the purpose of studying it. Say some scientific software library's source available so you can check the details of the algorithm.
2. Release the source, and allow you to make improvements to it, but not give any further distribution rights.
3. Release the source, and allow non-commercial users to improve the source and distribute those improvements to other non-commercial users.
4. Release under some dual license.
5. Release under certified Open Source licenses.
I would say, most people would only label 1 or 2 as "source available". Over the past few years 3 and 4 are becoming more popular (for whatever reasons - good or bad). So 3 should have a name as well.
I like how the author used Kinopio for his “Uses This” interview: https://usesthis.com/interviews/pirijan/ And I instantly recognized that artwork from Hirō Isono: Seiken Densetsu 3 ! https://archive.org/details/seikendensetsu3sfchiresscans/Sei...
Also, "Kinopio" is the Japanese name for the Mario character that the English-speaking world knows as Toad.
> On the eve of it’s 5th anniversary, I’ve decided to make the code for the kinopio-client app public. Can you clarify if the server is also open source? If not, a more accurate headline would be "Open Sourcing Kinopio Client"; which is a very different thing.
The client isn't actually open source, either. It's under a source-available license (PolyForm Noncommercial License) which only permits changes and distribution for enumerated non-commercial purposes.
> On the eve of it’s 5th anniversary, I’ve decided to make the code for the kinopio-client app public. Can you clarify if the server is also open source? If not, a more accurate headline would be "Open Sourcing Kinopio Client"; which is a very different thing.
I do not see a Github repo for the server code. The client isn't actually open source, either. It's under a source-available license (PolyForm Noncommercial License) which only permits changes and distribution for enumerated non-commercial purposes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hardly pendantic to point out the obvious truth. Headline is a lie
To be fair, I myself was ignorant of the difference between open-source and source-available. This whole time I thought releasing the source code under a license that restricts commercial use was just as open-source as releasing something with an MIT license. Good to know I suppose.
Sorry to be pedantic, but since the licence forbids commercial use, the software isn't open source, but rather just source-available.
It isn't pedantic. It is the truth. I personally won't touch non-commercial products. Mainly because I never know if what I am doing is commercial. If I'm doing open source work, but not getting paid, but there's a company involved. Think about improving the keyboard you are using's firmware... Now what happens if that company is grateful and sends you a prototype of the next board to help them out. You are now getti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hardly pendantic to point out the obvious truth. Headline is a lie
To be fair, I myself was ignorant of the difference between open-source and source-available. This whole time I thought releasing the source code under a license that restricts commercial use was just as open-source as releasing something with an MIT license. Good to know I suppose.
It's just not Open Source according to the OSI people who believe they own the term. They do not hold a trademark on the term.
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8367/is-the-t...
The term "open" has been used as a weasel words in the industry before OSI and "open source".
Off the top of my head: "The Open Group", "Open Software Foundation", "X/Open", "Open Look", "OpenStep", "OpenGL", "OpenMax", "OpenType", ...
It's best to use more specific terms like "BSD licensed", "MIT licensed" or "Copyleft".
Or FOSS. "FOSS" is a thing because open source isn't necessarily free due to the conflation with source-available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? We all know what "source available" mean and that it's not really open-source.
Because you can 1. Release the source only for the purpose of studying it. Say some scientific software library's source available so you can check the details of the algorithm. 2. Release the source, and allow you to make improvements to it, but not give any further distribution rights. 3. Release the source, and allow non-commercial users to improve the source and distribute those improvements to other non-commerci…
honestly, i wish the spirit behind that license were easier to formalise and publish - it roughly says "look, this is a game i made and am selling, and i don't want people taking this repo and just cloning the game for free. but we are a community of people making games, and i would love to provide the code and other assets as building blocks that will let other people make their own games more easily."
> On the eve of it’s 5th anniversary, I’ve decided to make the code for the kinopio-client app public. Can you clarify if the server is also open source? If not, a more accurate headline would be "Open Sourcing Kinopio Client"; which is a very different thing.