3 ms·
I'm not just an armchair expert. I am a literal expert. Involved in it for decades. Wrote published papers. It's part of my job title. Excluding commercial use
by dwheeler 6y ago
I'm not just an armchair expert. I am a literal expert. Involved in it for decades. Wrote published papers. It's part of my job title.
Excluding commercial use is not helping the growth of OSS, it is falsely claiming to be OSS.
If you want to say that it is being released as "source available" no one would complain. It is the falsehoods that bring out the complaints.
- Operyl 6y agoIt's not excluding commercial use entirely, though. It's free to use, free to modify. But not free to steal, make a change, and resell.
- hartator 6y ago> Excluding commercial use is not helping the growth of OSS, it is falsely claiming to be OSS. Is anything less than BSD or MIT license not open source then? I am all for it, but you are publishing some of your work under GNU which mean I can't use in one of my projects without publishing the source code under GNU. Why these restrictions are acceptable but not non-commercialisation?
- dwheeler 6y agoGPL is well-known to be an open source software license. Many commercial organizations depend on it.
- hartator 6y ago> If you use components that are licensed under GPLv3, then you are required to license the complete application the contains the GPL components under the GPL as well. It seems to be more restrictive to me than the OP's license.
- Kiro 6y agoIt's people like you that makes me afraid of releasing stuff open source. So aggressive for no reason at all.
- matz1 6y ago>it is falsely claiming to be OSS There is no single entity that own the word open source >If you want to say that it is being released as "source available" no one would complain Just like everything else, I totally understand that some will like it, some don't.