4 ms·

honest question: why do you consider non-commercial not open source or free software but not attribution or sharealike ?

jeltz 4y ago
That has been the most common definition at least for the last 25 years. The Wikipedia article about open source is a good place to start reading. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license
blagie 4y ago
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms I'd more generally point to RMS' writings from the nineties and before. They're prophetic. He gets dismissed, but it's almost scary how much he predicted correctly 30-40 years ago, and how closely open source (which started as a push-back against free software) eventually converged to what he wrote back then.
stonemetal12 4y ago
The OSI definition of Open source says "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale." NC obviously violates the definition of Open Source. As far as I can tell it is a less well specified version of the Commons Clause license.
snvzz 4y ago
Both Open Source (as defined by OSI) and Free Software (as defined by FSF) do require freedom of use, by anyone, for any purpose.
grumbel 4y ago
Historically, not having "non-commercial" was extremely important for Free Software, as it meant people were allowed to distribute tapes, floppies and CD-ROMs for money with the software on it. We would never have had all the Linux distributions without that and nobody would have been able to get the software, as Internet for the masses was still a decade away. The modern Internet has drastically lowered that barrier and "non-commercial" is slightly less of an issue, as you no longer need a middle man handling the shipping. However servers still don't run for free and non-commercial creates the problem of defining what commercial use actually is. Is having ads on your page enough to make it commercial use? What if the ads aren't under your control, but automatically inserted by the hoster (Instagram, Youtube, Reddit, etc.)? Donations to keep the servers running can count as commercial and all that. It gets really tricky to draw the line and most people will just avoid anything with a "non-commercial" clause. Meanwhile attribution and sharealike are relatively harmless. Many Free Software licenses have required similar. They tell you exactly what rules you have to follow and don't hinder the distribution or use of it.

jeltz 4y ago

That has been the most common definition at least for the last 25 years. The Wikipedia article about open source is a good place to start reading. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license

blagie 4y ago

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms I'd more generally point to RMS' writings from the nineties and before. They're prophetic. He gets dismissed, but it's almost scary how much he predicted correctly 30-40 years ago, and how closely open source (which started as a push-back against free software) eventually converged to what he wrote back then.

stonemetal12 4y ago

The OSI definition of Open source says "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale." NC obviously violates the definition of Open Source. As far as I can tell it is a less well specified version of the Commons Clause license.

snvzz 4y ago

Both Open Source (as defined by OSI) and Free Software (as defined by FSF) do require freedom of use, by anyone, for any purpose.

grumbel 4y ago

Historically, not having "non-commercial" was extremely important for Free Software, as it meant people were allowed to distribute tapes, floppies and CD-ROMs for money with the software on it. We would never have had all the Linux distributions without that and nobody would have been able to get the software, as Internet for the masses was still a decade away. The modern Internet has drastically lowered that barrier and "non-commercial" is slightly less of an issue, as you no longer need a middle man handling the shipping. However servers still don't run for free and non-commercial creates the problem of defining what commercial use actually is. Is having ads on your page enough to make it commercial use? What if the ads aren't under your control, but automatically inserted by the hoster (Instagram, Youtube, Reddit, etc.)? Donations to keep the servers running can count as commercial and all that. It gets really tricky to draw the line and most people will just avoid anything with a "non-commercial" clause. Meanwhile attribution and sharealike are relatively harmless. Many Free Software licenses have required similar. They tell you exactly what rules you have to follow and don't hinder the distribution or use of it.