51–60 of 63 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Thanks. I always read headlines like this with skepticism and try to find the license used right away. They score easy feel-good points throwing around "open source" without going all the way.
Related: The Hybrid Architecture of Kinopio for iOS - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37404820 - Sept 2023 (1 comment) Kinopio - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31460626 - May 2022 (141 comments) Kinopio - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29726044 - Dec 2021 (2 comments) Show HN: Kinopio.club – visual thinking, brainstorming tool - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24132631 - Aug 2020 (64 comments)
Pirijan is being very cool opening up the main product in the first place- this isn't just a supporting library or sidecar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I strongly agree with this. You just don't have to worry if it's actually free software. You can use vim and emacs at home or at work. You don't need to suddenly pay for a professional license or risk getting into trouble. It's just easier to stick to free (as in freedom) software for this reason. You can do what you want, where you want, no nonsense.
I use the JetBrains IDEs, I have no issue paying for them, I can install them on as many machines as I need etc.
If I make more FOSS, by using a non FOSS tool, it is worth it to me.
I value clarity of licensing above all. The non-commercial, can't use it in military applications or can't use it to save puppies ware is the stuff I really hate.
Do I prefer FOSS, yes, do I try to cut back over to emacs and neovim every so often, yeah. Do I stay where I am for now, so I can be more productive... Yeah.
What's the deal with all the anons complaining about the non-commercial use clause? It's one guy. There'd almost certainly be paid clones popping up otherwise. Pirijan is being very cool opening up the main product in the first place- this isn't just a supporting library or sidecar.
It's great that they are making the source available, but the non-commercial restriction means it isn't open source, so don't claim that it is.
What's the deal with all the anons complaining about the non-commercial use clause? It's one guy. There'd almost certainly be paid clones popping up otherwise. Pirijan is being very cool opening up the main product in the first place- this isn't just a supporting library or sidecar.
Because they are claiming that it is open source, when it isn't. It's great that they are making the source available, but the non-commercial restriction means it isn't open source, so don't claim that it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
thanks for letting me know, I've changed the title of the post to "Making the Kinopio Source Code Available"
You might be interested in fair.io, launching next month. We ran into a similar problem a year ago that ended up stirring up a lot of drama, so we are now promoting the term Fair Source instead of Open Source. Fair Source: https://fair.io/ Our drama: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36971490 Lots more context: https://openpath.chadwhitacre.com/2024/the-historical-case-f...
However, I don't like the name "fair source". It implies that open source is somehow unfair, which I don't think is fair.
I see where the name comes from, since it is trying to be more "fair" to the creating company by preventing another company from building a product without putting any work or money into it. But compressing that nuance into the word "fair" is IMO potentially confusing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they are claiming that it is open source, when it isn't. It's great that they are making the source available, but the non-commercial restriction means it isn't open source, so don't claim that it is.
He changed the title. The drama is over.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
thanks for letting me know, I've changed the title of the post to "Making the Kinopio Source Code Available"
You might be interested in fair.io, launching next month. We ran into a similar problem a year ago that ended up stirring up a lot of drama, so we are now promoting the term Fair Source instead of Open Source. Fair Source: https://fair.io/ Our drama: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36971490 Lots more context: https://openpath.chadwhitacre.com/2024/the-historical-case-f...
I would also echo other commentators that the name may lead to a belief that you are implying that other software models aren't fair. If that is not your intent, then adding an explanation of it on the website may be a good idea, so that others will know why the name "fair" was chosen and how it is meant to be interpreted in relation to the other licensing models.