4 ms·

Interestingly the license in the software and hardware is the: "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License"

by elkos 5y ago

msla 5y ago
> "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License" The NonCommercial part makes it incompatible with the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd > 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. Ditto the Debian Free Software Guidelines: https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html > Q: Can I say "You must not charge [much] money for distributing the program"? > A: This is non-free. We want Debian to be distributed by for-profit CD vendors and improved by corporate resellers. We can only include programs whose authors allow this. > For many users buying Debian on disks is more convenient (and cheaper) than downloading. For-profit distribution is the most reliable and convenient way to ensure that Debian disks are easily available everywhere where there is a demand. Because everyone can download the CD images and start producing their own disks, competition ensures that nobody will make an undeserved fortune distributing Debian. > Q: Can I say "You must not use the program for commercial purposes"? > A: This is non-free. We want businesses to be able to use Debian for their computing needs. A business should be able to use any program in Debian without checking its license. It also goes against the Creative Commons people's guidance on the matter: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm... > Can I apply a Creative Commons license to software? > We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses listed as free by the Free Software Foundation and listed as “open source” by the Open Source Initiative.
- kergonath 5y ago
  Debian and NumWorks obviously have different perspectives. The points raised in your comment are more ideological than practical. Personally I am happy that a company that cares about source accessibility is making decent calculators, and slightly amused that Debian and the OSI seem to find that worse than copyleft.
  - snvzz 5y ago
    >The points raised in your comment are more ideological than practical. The primary point is that this is neither Open Source nor Free Software, by OSI and FSF definitions of these terms, which are the generally accepted ones. When a claim of "open source" is wrongly made in the interest of marketing, the expectation should be for this misrepresentation to be called for.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > which are the generally accepted ones. They really aren’t. These are colloquial terms, not trademarks. > When a claim of "open source" is wrongly made in the interest of marketing, the expectation should be for this misrepresentation to be called for. It’s not a misrepresentation. “Open source” is a generic term. Pretending it has a legal meaning is just not a reflection of reality.
      - snvzz 5y ago
        >They really aren’t. These are colloquial terms, not trademarks. They are terms with strong definitions that are well accepted in the community, including the industry. >It’s not a misrepresentation. “Open source” is a generic term. It isn't. See above. >Pretending it has a legal meaning is just not a reflection of reality. Nobody said a thing (yet) about legal meaning. However, there are licenses (legal territory) which are Open Source, and there are licenses (such as the ones used by NumWorks) which are not. And, to top it off, they are not Open Hardware either. And I'd suggest great care on avoiding the misuse of "Open Source", as the OSI might invoke their right to protect their trademarks[0]. [0] https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines
lioeters 5y ago
That is beautiful. I wish the company great success. > Epsilon is a high-performance graphing calculator operating system. > It includes eight apps that cover the high school mathematics curriculum. https://www.numworks.com/resources/engineering/software/ https://www.numworks.com/resources/engineering/software/ https://github.com/numworks/epsilon https://github.com/numworks/epsilon Looks like this single codebase is used to build for the calculator device, and all targets for the simulator: Android, iOS, macOS, Windows, and the web. > NumWorks Epsilon is released under a CC BY-NC-SA License. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode
- elkos 5y ago
  The non-commercial part makes it incompatible with the Open Source definition by OSI thought.

Interestingly the license in the software and hardware is the: "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License"

by elkos 5y ago

Interestingly the license in the software and hardware is the: "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License"

msla 5y ago

> "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License" The NonCommercial part makes it incompatible with the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd > 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. Ditto the Debian Free Software Guidelines: https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html > Q: Can I say "You must not charge [much] money for distributing the program"? > A: This is non-free. We want Debian to be distributed by for-profit CD vendors and improved by corporate resellers. We can only include programs whose authors allow this. > For many users buying Debian on disks is more convenient (and cheaper) than downloading. For-profit distribution is the most reliable and convenient way to ensure that Debian disks are easily available everywhere where there is a demand. Because everyone can download the CD images and start producing their own disks, competition ensures that nobody will make an undeserved fortune distributing Debian. > Q: Can I say "You must not use the program for commercial purposes"? > A: This is non-free. We want businesses to be able to use Debian for their computing needs. A business should be able to use any program in Debian without checking its license. It also goes against the Creative Commons people's guidance on the matter: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm... > Can I apply a Creative Commons license to software? > We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses listed as free by the Free Software Foundation and listed as “open source” by the Open Source Initiative.

kergonath 5y ago
Debian and NumWorks obviously have different perspectives. The points raised in your comment are more ideological than practical. Personally I am happy that a company that cares about source accessibility is making decent calculators, and slightly amused that Debian and the OSI seem to find that worse than copyleft.
- snvzz 5y ago
  >The points raised in your comment are more ideological than practical. The primary point is that this is neither Open Source nor Free Software, by OSI and FSF definitions of these terms, which are the generally accepted ones. When a claim of "open source" is wrongly made in the interest of marketing, the expectation should be for this misrepresentation to be called for.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > which are the generally accepted ones. They really aren’t. These are colloquial terms, not trademarks. > When a claim of "open source" is wrongly made in the interest of marketing, the expectation should be for this misrepresentation to be called for. It’s not a misrepresentation. “Open source” is a generic term. Pretending it has a legal meaning is just not a reflection of reality.
    - snvzz 5y ago
      >They really aren’t. These are colloquial terms, not trademarks. They are terms with strong definitions that are well accepted in the community, including the industry. >It’s not a misrepresentation. “Open source” is a generic term. It isn't. See above. >Pretending it has a legal meaning is just not a reflection of reality. Nobody said a thing (yet) about legal meaning. However, there are licenses (legal territory) which are Open Source, and there are licenses (such as the ones used by NumWorks) which are not. And, to top it off, they are not Open Hardware either. And I'd suggest great care on avoiding the misuse of "Open Source", as the OSI might invoke their right to protect their trademarks[0]. [0] https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines

lioeters 5y ago

That is beautiful. I wish the company great success. > Epsilon is a high-performance graphing calculator operating system. > It includes eight apps that cover the high school mathematics curriculum. https://www.numworks.com/resources/engineering/software/ https://www.numworks.com/resources/engineering/software/ https://github.com/numworks/epsilon https://github.com/numworks/epsilon Looks like this single codebase is used to build for the calculator device, and all targets for the simulator: Android, iOS, macOS, Windows, and the web. > NumWorks Epsilon is released under a CC BY-NC-SA License. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode

elkos 5y ago
The non-commercial part makes it incompatible with the Open Source definition by OSI thought.