3 ms·

Not much more strict than CC-BY-NC, unless I’m missing something? The “you may not represent your fork as my product” is a good abuse prevention that I’m not su

Not much more strict than CC-BY-NC, unless I’m missing something? The “you may not represent your fork as my product” is a good abuse prevention that I’m not sure the equivalent CC contains, good call including that.

teddyh 7y ago
“You may not alter or redistribute this software in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” This kind of stuff is generally regarded as non-Open Source.
- SQueeeeeL 7y ago
  "Don't make VVVVV 2 with my code" seems to be what they're going for. I don't know if I agree with the sentiment, but it's nice to have this source available, so if this is the price we have to pay...
- tudelo 7y ago
  Why? The source is open to the public?
  - woodrowbarlow 7y ago
    it's a "look but don't touch" situation. open-source means giving freedom to the users. there's nothing wrong with source-available, but source-available and open-source are not equivalent.
  - teddyh 7y ago
    The term “Open Source” has a precise definition, determined by the Open Source Initiative, who invented the term and started promoting it. Nobody used this term in software contexts before they did. They get to define it.
    - xorcist 7y ago
      Not sure why this is downvoted. One of the criteria when the term "open source" was decided on by the people who went to form the OSI was that it must not have (much) documented earlier use in order to become eligible for trademark protection. It was always meant to be a trademark, even if they ended up losing that particular battle. It was deemed to descriptive and generic to be trademarkable, IIRC. The OSI published their criteria anyway, enforced it as much as they could, and really publicized the term over the years. Of course they get to define it.
  - yarrel 7y ago
    The source is being shown to the public. It's not open for them to use. To argue otherwise is to confuse a window with a door.
    - floatingatoll 7y ago
      The analogy doesn’t really hold. Is a bathroom door at a grocery store called a “window” rather than a “door” if they prohibit you from bringing unpaid groceries through it?
      - Gracana 7y ago
        I have no idea what you're going for here. I feel like Programmer Analogies always rely on the reader agreeing with the author... :|
        floatingatoll 7y ago
        Not all windows are doors. Don’t worry about it, I’m terrible at analogies that make sense to anyone (including programmers, sadly). And if I clarified I’d just be attacked further for not endorsing the OSI party line when it comes to these things. It’s not you, it’s me, etc.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  Terry is no longer calling this open source after someone pointed this out. The title of the original article now reads "VVVVVV’s Source Code Is Now Public".

teddyh 7y ago

“You may not alter or redistribute this software in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” This kind of stuff is generally regarded as non-Open Source.

SQueeeeeL 7y ago
"Don't make VVVVV 2 with my code" seems to be what they're going for. I don't know if I agree with the sentiment, but it's nice to have this source available, so if this is the price we have to pay...
tudelo 7y ago
Why? The source is open to the public?
- woodrowbarlow 7y ago
  it's a "look but don't touch" situation. open-source means giving freedom to the users. there's nothing wrong with source-available, but source-available and open-source are not equivalent.
- teddyh 7y ago
  The term “Open Source” has a precise definition, determined by the Open Source Initiative, who invented the term and started promoting it. Nobody used this term in software contexts before they did. They get to define it.
  - xorcist 7y ago
    Not sure why this is downvoted. One of the criteria when the term "open source" was decided on by the people who went to form the OSI was that it must not have (much) documented earlier use in order to become eligible for trademark protection. It was always meant to be a trademark, even if they ended up losing that particular battle. It was deemed to descriptive and generic to be trademarkable, IIRC. The OSI published their criteria anyway, enforced it as much as they could, and really publicized the term over the years. Of course they get to define it.
- yarrel 7y ago
  The source is being shown to the public. It's not open for them to use. To argue otherwise is to confuse a window with a door.
  - floatingatoll 7y ago
    The analogy doesn’t really hold. Is a bathroom door at a grocery store called a “window” rather than a “door” if they prohibit you from bringing unpaid groceries through it?
    - Gracana 7y ago
      I have no idea what you're going for here. I feel like Programmer Analogies always rely on the reader agreeing with the author... :|
      - floatingatoll 7y ago
        Not all windows are doors. Don’t worry about it, I’m terrible at analogies that make sense to anyone (including programmers, sadly). And if I clarified I’d just be attacked further for not endorsing the OSI party line when it comes to these things. It’s not you, it’s me, etc.
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
Terry is no longer calling this open source after someone pointed this out. The title of the original article now reads "VVVVVV’s Source Code Is Now Public".