5 ms·

CC non-commercial isn't open source.

• JetSpiegel 8y ago
  It is open source but not free software.
  • detaro 8y ago
    Not according to the OSI definition, which arguably traces back very directly to the original idea behind the term: > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
    • toyg 8y ago
      The whole OSI endeavour is far from uncontroversial in the OSS/FOSS world. It's not gospel to quote from, particularly when it comes to commercial use. A lot of people would say that OSI exists precisely to make sure corporation-friendly clauses like this would prevail in the open-source world. Hell, the whole "open source" term was literally invented by people like ESR to differentiate from Free Software enough to make it an easier sell in the commercial world.
      • detaro 8y ago
        > Hell, the whole "open source" term was literally invented by people like ESR to differentiate from Free Software enough to make it an easier sell in the commercial world. If it was invented for that purpose, isn't that a reason why one shouldn't use the term for things that conflict with that goal? "Free Software" following GNU also can't have a non-commerce clause (Freedom 0). I totally get that people want to restrict commercial use, but I believe "everyone can use the software" is enough of a core value and a NC-license would be incompatible with so much of the ecosystem that it's fair to classify NC-licenses as something else.
      • beojan 8y ago
        The OSI definition is based on the DFSG, so in practice it's stricter than the free software definition.
• jexah 8y ago
  Yes it is. Open source literally means that the source is public. I think you mean CC non-commercial is not "free software".
  • beojan 8y ago
    No, open source means the license meets the OSI definition of open source, which CC NC doesn't.
    • jexah 8y ago
      opensource.com would beg to differ. I suppose it depends on where one gets their definition from.
      • n_jd 8y ago
        CC NC forbids using the material for commercial purposes [1]. On 'use', opensource.com defers to the four freedoms [2], which includes the freedom to use software for whatever you like. So by opensource.com, software licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 is not open source. Also they don't mention creative commons when discussing open source licenses [5] because it doesn't make sense for code. I can see why you might think opensource.com says that open source "literally means the source is public" if you only read the first sentence in their defining article [3]. Fair enough, this is a common misunderstanding [4]. [1] - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ [2] - https://opensource.com/law/10/10/license-compliance-not-problem-open-source-users https://opensource.com/law/10/10/license-compliance-not-prob... [3] - https://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source https://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source [4] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/wenjiazhao/2012/07/06/beliefs-and-misbeliefs-on-open-source-software/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/wenjiazhao/2012/07/06/beliefs-a... [5] - https://opensource.com/law/13/1/which-open-source-software-license-should-i-use https://opensource.com/law/13/1/which-open-source-software-l...