4 ms·

Is this a joke? OSI essentially means only "corporate friendly" licenses are allowed. If someone wants to protect their work under a non-commercial license, the

by 2h 4y ago

Is this a joke? OSI essentially means only "corporate friendly" licenses are allowed. If someone wants to protect their work under a non-commercial license, they can do that on GitHub but not CodeBerg.

LambdaComplex 4y ago
> OSI essentially means only "corporate friendly" licenses are allowed The GPL and AGPL are both on the list that you're replying to.
- 2h 4y ago
  Those both allow commercial use, so you just proved my point.
  - juunpp 4y ago
    Considering how corporations are often allergic to the GPL variants, you can consider them non-commercial for most practical purposes.
    - 2h 4y ago
      every single license here allows commercial use: https://choosealicense.com/appendix https://choosealicense.com/appendix so I will defer to that over your opinion.
glitchc 4y ago
Note that Codeberg supports both FSF and OSI licenses. I listed just the OSI ones in response to the OP's claim that their stance somehow prohibits commercial access to source code listed on their site. FSF licenses are listed here [2]. Goodness, FOSS seems to stir some strong emotions on HN. [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
- 2h 4y ago
  > Note that Codeberg supports both FSF and OSI licenses those all allow commercial use. so programmers who want to prevent commercial use cannot use CodeBerg.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Is this a joke? OSI essentially means only “corporate friendly” licenses are allowed. If someone wants to protect their work under a non-commercial license, they can do that on GitHub but not CodeBerg. Yes, use-restricted licenses aren’t Free Software. Codeberg is a non-profit that promotes Free Software. Not a joke, just out of mission.
- 2h 4y ago
  > Yes, use-restricted licenses aren’t Free Software people always like to come out of the woodwork in these discussion throwing around scary terms. non-commercial licenses are exactly like any other open source license, with that one restriction that it cant be used for commercial purpose. people do this for good reason, to stop companies from making huge profits off the back of free work. so use whatever fancy term you want, but the practice is not defensible.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > people always like to come out of the woodwork in these discussion throwing around scary terms. There’s no scary terms involved here. Codeberg is a nonprofit foundation with Free software as part of its mission. > non-commercial licenses are exactly like any other open source license, non-commercial and other use-restricted licenses are not Open Source (OSI) or Free Software (FSF) licenses. > people do this for good reason And that is their right. Just as it is the right of a nonprofit organization whose entire mission is around licensing terms that are not use-restricted not to use their resources to support such software. People oppose use-restricted licenses for good reason, too.
    - 2h 4y ago
      > There’s no scary terms involved here. Codeberg is a nonprofit foundation with Free software as part of its mission. non-commercial licenses protect free software, just not in the pedantic meaning you are peddling. > non-commercial and other use-restricted licenses are not Open Source (OSI) or Free Software (FSF) licenses. looks like you cropped the rest of that sentence, so here it is again: with that one restriction that it cant be used for commercial purpose. Also if being OSI or FSF compliant, means that businesses can use my work for free, then no thank you. > People oppose use-restricted licenses for good reason, too. yeah, because they want software without paying for it, which they can then use to turn a profit.

by 2h 4y ago

LambdaComplex 4y ago

> OSI essentially means only "corporate friendly" licenses are allowed The GPL and AGPL are both on the list that you're replying to.

2h 4y ago
Those both allow commercial use, so you just proved my point.
- juunpp 4y ago
  Considering how corporations are often allergic to the GPL variants, you can consider them non-commercial for most practical purposes.
  - 2h 4y ago
    every single license here allows commercial use: https://choosealicense.com/appendix https://choosealicense.com/appendix so I will defer to that over your opinion.

glitchc 4y ago

Note that Codeberg supports both FSF and OSI licenses. I listed just the OSI ones in response to the OP's claim that their stance somehow prohibits commercial access to source code listed on their site. FSF licenses are listed here [2]. Goodness, FOSS seems to stir some strong emotions on HN. [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

2h 4y ago
> Note that Codeberg supports both FSF and OSI licenses those all allow commercial use. so programmers who want to prevent commercial use cannot use CodeBerg.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Is this a joke? OSI essentially means only “corporate friendly” licenses are allowed. If someone wants to protect their work under a non-commercial license, they can do that on GitHub but not CodeBerg. Yes, use-restricted licenses aren’t Free Software. Codeberg is a non-profit that promotes Free Software. Not a joke, just out of mission.

2h 4y ago
> Yes, use-restricted licenses aren’t Free Software people always like to come out of the woodwork in these discussion throwing around scary terms. non-commercial licenses are exactly like any other open source license, with that one restriction that it cant be used for commercial purpose. people do this for good reason, to stop companies from making huge profits off the back of free work. so use whatever fancy term you want, but the practice is not defensible.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > people always like to come out of the woodwork in these discussion throwing around scary terms. There’s no scary terms involved here. Codeberg is a nonprofit foundation with Free software as part of its mission. > non-commercial licenses are exactly like any other open source license, non-commercial and other use-restricted licenses are not Open Source (OSI) or Free Software (FSF) licenses. > people do this for good reason And that is their right. Just as it is the right of a nonprofit organization whose entire mission is around licensing terms that are not use-restricted not to use their resources to support such software. People oppose use-restricted licenses for good reason, too.
  - 2h 4y ago
    > There’s no scary terms involved here. Codeberg is a nonprofit foundation with Free software as part of its mission. non-commercial licenses protect free software, just not in the pedantic meaning you are peddling. > non-commercial and other use-restricted licenses are not Open Source (OSI) or Free Software (FSF) licenses. looks like you cropped the rest of that sentence, so here it is again: with that one restriction that it cant be used for commercial purpose. Also if being OSI or FSF compliant, means that businesses can use my work for free, then no thank you. > People oppose use-restricted licenses for good reason, too. yeah, because they want software without paying for it, which they can then use to turn a profit.