4 ms·
Free software licenses are considered open source, yet they contains some restrictions. Commons clause licenses have some restrictions, but there is no reason t
by tasogare 7y ago
Free software licenses are considered open source, yet they contains some restrictions. Commons clause licenses have some restrictions, but there is no reason they should be excluded from the open source definition, especially when we consider why they exists and which companies they target.
- ensignavenger 7y agoThe open source definition literally excludes commons clause licenses. And for very good reasons!
- yarrel 7y agoThere is no part of that's true. The restrictions in the mendaciously named "commons clause" license are excluded by the FSD, BFSG and the file-off-the-serial-numbers copy of it that is the OSD. "Keep headers" or "share and share alike" are not restrictions on use, although every April first do I realise that I once again haven't sent out a fake press release about how the BSD licenses discriminate against my source file header-removal business.