5 ms·
You are misreading it. Software = Keyframes software. Your Software = Whatever you are releasing. So basically they are saying you can't redistribute just th
by electic 10y ago
You are misreading it.
Software = Keyframes software.
Your Software = Whatever you are releasing.
So basically they are saying you can't redistribute just the Keyframes software library by itself. Which also means, if I understand this right, you can't fork it and modify it either.
I agree however, not a good license.
- echelon 10y agoI'm not misreading it. The license says we cannot fork the software. That's not open source.
- CorpOverreach 10y agoDo you have access to the source? Yes? It's open source. Open Source need not be free as in beer, nor as in freedom.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- detaro 10y agoNo. Call that "source available", "source access" or something, but "Open Source" is pretty much established to be defined by the OSI definition of the term: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- idbehold 10y agoThe OSI should trademark the phrase "open source". License it for anyone claiming their software is open source (as defined by OSI), and send cease and desists to anyone who is using the phase incorrectly.
- icebraining 10y agoThey can't: We have discovered that there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark "open source"; the mark is too descriptive. Ironically, we were partly a victim of our own success in bringing the `open source' concept into the mainstream. https://news.slashdot.org/story/99/06/17/0213251/esr-on-the-open-source-trademark https://news.slashdot.org/story/99/06/17/0213251/esr-on-the-...
- mioelnir 10y ago> ... but "Open Source" is pretty much retconned to be defined by the OSI definition of the term "Open source" as a term or development methodology is older than both the OSI definition and the Debian manual it is based on.
- andybak 10y agoThey had better start paying their lawyers overtime. You can't do a PR without forking and people fork on Github for a multitude of reasons (I often fork into a group as a lazy form of bookmarking or collecting projects). Hell. I just clicked the 'fork' button. Where's my cease and desist?
- electic 10y agoI would argue that GitHub should remove this software. It just runs counter with their TOS.
- st3v3r 10y agoA PR isn't the only way to contribute. You can also check out the repo and send in patch files.
- tomjakubowski 10y agoJust wondering: for lazy repo bookmarking, why fork rather than star?
- reubano 10y agoFor me, forks are like super stars. I have an order of magnitude more stars than forks.
- lhorie 10y agoIf I understand right, you can fork it and even redistribute it, as long as your software isn't a blatant plagiarism of this repo. So technically, taking this library and putting it together with some other library yielding some meaningful application is enough to satisfy that clause.
- scarhill 10y agoI read it as only allowing you to redistribute unmodified copies, because clause 3 only permits modification "for your own internal use."
- electic 10y agoAlso, even if were to improve on it and release it as a fork, as an example, it still falls into the definition of "software" and is in violation of the terms.
- cosmotron 10y agoIsn't a different interpretation that a fork is, presumably, their software _plus_ your modification(s)? Thus, a fork is not "solely" their software anymore and is allowed.
- izym 10y agoYes, but forking on GitHub means that initially it will be just their software.
- bobwaycott 10y agoThe issue people are (rightly, imo) pointing out is that forking without modifications—say, to remain locked to a particular commit for whatever reasons one may have—appears to directly violate the terms of the custom license (which itself appears to directly violate the terms of Github's TOS.
- LeanderK 10y agowhat is the motivation to release the library on github with such a license? If you can't fork it you can't improve it.
- peller 10y agoThey want the user adoption, without giving up control, presumably.
- LeanderK 10y agothis might be silly, but why? what does Facebook gain by getting this library user adoption (beside some bug-reporting). I would think that for fb user adoption of the open source projects is not the goal, but getting OSS developers attracted and getting fixes/features etc. developed from them. Or is it some kind of pride? Fake internet point for having repositories on github?
- st3v3r 10y agoDev mindshare.
- peller 10y agoMy long-time-range guess is that this is FB's play for becoming a standard replacement/upgrade for GIFs. From the post: "Initially, we looked at common static image formats such as PNG sequences and GIFs, as well as even more compressed formats like WebP. It quickly became clear that these wouldn't work without drastically simplifying the animations for file size, and that we'd have to accept the drawback of static images not scaling up or down very well." So, reading between the lines, they've made what they think is a better GIF. And perhaps it is, and if so, that's big business[1], and so having a first-mover advantage on mobile could be highly profitable. (They're a public A-corporation, after all.) But who knows; I could be reading too far into it or just flat-out wrong, too! [1] http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a21457/the-gif-is-dead-long-live-the-gif/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a21457/the-gif-is...