7 ms·

I often use non commercial license: https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/ And wi

by 2h 3y ago

I often use non commercial license: https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/ And without fail, people will howl ITS NOT OPEN SOURCE. They ignore that the code is on GitHub, and as long as you're not trying to make money with it, then do whatever you want with it. I don't like the idea of companies getting code for free and giving nothing back. I do like to support people who want my software for personal use.

ilyt 3y ago
> And without fail, people will howl ITS NOT OPEN SOURCE. They ignore that the code is on GitHub, and as long as you're not trying to make money with it, then do whatever you want with it Could just... not say that it is open source when it is not. The widely used definition of open is not limiting the usage of the code, not "just" showing the source code. "All rights reserved" code is still all rights reserved even if you put the code out there. > I don't like the idea of companies getting code for free and giving nothing back. Doesn't GPL/AGPL prevent that enough?
- LadyCailin 3y ago
  To me, “open source” means you can see the source code. “Free software” means you don’t have to pay for the binary. “Libre software” means you can do what you like with the software. The terms get conflated, but it seems to me that when you want to argue semantics, these are quite clear definitions.
  - mook 3y ago
    My understanding is that "you can see the source code" is typically labeled "source available". "Don't have to pay for the binary" is sometimes "free as in beer", or if you're using floppy disks, "freeware" (though that term seems to have fallen out of use).
    - LordDragonfang 3y ago
      >typically labeled "source available" I have literally only seen Free Software folks claiming this in similar discussions to this, and have not once seen that term used in practice (I'm sure you can find at least one example, but it's far from being common). The typical term for this is still "open source" whether it technically conforms to the OSI definition or not.
      - ilyt 3y ago
        Yes, the people who created invented what open source is are the folks claiming that, how bizzare /s And corporations that try to get some free marketing and code I guess. The term is clear - lack of limitations of usage for the code makes it open source. If you put any limitations, whether noncommercial, "not for evil" etc. it stops being open. It's not hard. If you close a door, it's not open anymore.
        LordDragonfang 3y ago
        > lack of limitations of usage for the code makes it open source. Except the GPL has a huge limitation (can only be used in GPL code) which "closes the door" to a lot of uses, and yet it's the gold standard.
      - palata 3y ago
        > The typical term for this is still "open source" whether it technically conforms to the OSI definition or not. Well, the typical term coming from people who don't understand the terms. That's why there is a need to explain them, repeatedly.
  - rhn_mk1 3y ago
    They might be clear, but they are not universally accepted. Ultimately, usage makes the definition.
    - ilyt 3y ago
      And doing that should be condemned, especially that in this case it is mostly to further corporate interest. What next, gotta call Windows "open source"?
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        > gotta call Windows "open source"? Just wait. That's coming.
    - palata 3y ago
      I am fine with usage making the definition if that's not destroying the concepts. People who use "open source" for "source-available" don't seem to have another word for what is actually called "open source". What does that mean? Do they just use whatever code they find online the way they want? They surely use open source code, so somehow they should have a need for a word that design open source software.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    > To me, “open source” means you can see the source code. To me, "sugar" means cane sugar, so I should be able to call food that's full of HFCS "sugar free".
    - toast0 3y ago
      I mean, might as well go with if you don't have to pay for the sugar, you can call it "sugar free".
    - ilyt 3y ago
      Your ignorance is not everyone's else problem and the ignorant should not be catered for
  - ilyt 3y ago
    It's not to the law. The fact you see the source doesn't mean you can just take and use it. > “Libre software” means you can do what you like with the software. The terms get conflated, but it seems to me that when you want to argue semantics, these are quite clear definitions. The term was perfectly clear before people like you tried to conflate it by throwing bullshit terms like "libre software"
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    To me, "Open Source" means an OSI-approved license, and "Free Software" means a FSF-approved license. Any redefinition of these (quite strange) terms means that somebody is trying to make money piggybacking off of the goodwill that FOSS has generated. If your source is available, tell people that your source is available. If you're not going to charge for your software, call it "free software" if you want to confuse people, say it's available for free if you don't. Otherwise I'm going to start selling apples that are 30% plastic as organic.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > To me, "Open Source" means an OSI-approved license, and "Free Software" means a FSF-approved license. I mostly agree, although I don't think they have to use the official licenses to qualify for the terms. Your license does have to adhere to the underlying principles those official licenses are built on, though! And this is where things fall down a bit, because too many people don't understand that these terms have very specific meanings and end up misusing them.
      - palata 3y ago
        > too many people don't understand that these terms have very specific meanings and end up misusing them. Agreed. But the solution is to educate them :).
        JohnFen 3y ago
        It is, yes. And here is where I'm a bit selfish -- after many years of doing that and ending up in countless emotional arguments with people who want the terms to mean things they objectively do not mean, I've grown weary of the fight. That, in the end, is why I've stopped doing that. I don't say that thinking it's the right thing. I say that just out of plain, weary, honesty.
  - palata 3y ago
    Respectfully, I think you are wrong. "Source-available" means that you can see the source code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software. If I make a library, publish the source code online, and do NOT add a license, then you are not allowed to use it. "Open-source" means more, including (among others) free redistribution and derived works: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/. If I make a library an publish the source code under an open source license (permissive or not), then you can use it under the conditions of that license. "Free/Libre" means that the end-user keeps the open source rights, i.e. the rights to view and modify the free/libre code running in the product they bought. If you build a product by assembling permissive-licensed libraries, you can sell it as proprietary code (with some attribution). So your customers have somehow "lost" some of the open source rights you got. If you build a product by assembling copyleft-licensed libraries, then you need to provide those libraries to your customers; they kept their rights.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- NotYourLawyer 3y ago
  It is open source. It’s just not free. There’s been a lot of effort to conflate those terms over the years.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    Are you saying the Open Source Definition isn't the definition of open source?
    - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
      https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ I’m saying that there is a large amount of software out there that calls itself open source but that doesn’t meet these terms.
      - jraph 3y ago
        I have never run into such software and it would be wrong to do this. Open source is a well understood and non-controversial designation. If you are a developer you have run into the OSD for sure and therefore, even if you don't agree with this use of the expression, if your goal is to be clear and understood, you'd be a fool to call your software open source if it does not use an OSI approved license because it would be confusing and you'd be aware of this fact. The usual qualifier for software with available source code is source-available. There's no doubt about it. We really don't need even more confusion around the terms of free software and open source than we already have.
      - ilyt 3y ago
        ...like ? Where is that "large amount"? The two I remember (Mongo and Elastic) were shat on for their license change and fake open source.
        jraph 3y ago
        Yes, the name of their license, Server-Side Public License, is a bit confusing because of the Public License part that sounds like the name of an open source license, but that's all. IIRC their communication at the time was somewhat confusing too, but the problem is solved now. Assuming no evil intents, MongoDB might have been confused themselves, genuinely thinking the SSPL was actually open source, since they tried to submit it for approval to the OSI. At the time it was unclear the license was not open source, even if some people immediately noticed issues with it.
- majormajor 3y ago
  It's not clear here if the poster you're replying to claims it's "open source" or if it's just source code on Github with a non-commercial license itself that offends some.
pantojax45 3y ago
> And without fail, people will howl ITS NOT OPEN SOURCE. Right, they mean that, as a user, you are not free to use the software for any purpose, nor are you free to change it in any way. Whether open source is morally/ethically better is separate from its definition. It's fine for you to say you only want to support non-commercial use, but if you call it "Open Source" it dilutes the definition.
candiddevmike 3y ago
How do you see yourself enforcing that license?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jraph 3y ago
  This is a question that is valid for any open source / free software project too. Or any software project, really, source available or not. In the end, it's hard work to actually enforce any license and can cost a lot of time, energy and money. That said, I would trust any OSI or FSF-approved license, they've been reviewed by a lot of people including lawyers. but this one does not seem very solid.
jraph 3y ago
That's because there are legitimate commercial uses. I'm sure you could find some cases that you would agree with. For instance would you disagree with your baker who does not make an insane amount of money to use your software? or some group of people paid to work towards a cause close to your heart? NC makes your software far less useful and may have unintended consequences. Free software is also a means for the human civilization to build public commons cooperatively and NC prevents that a bit. Many desirable and useful things are made in a commercial setting. Unfortunately, people need money to live. Non commercial stuff can only happen in the time that remains. Even in this time left: I'm in a choir that does not make any profit. Can we use your NC software even if we pay our director or if we make people coming to our concerts pay? In doubt I would not. You could make your code open source copyleft (so people cannot lock you out by building closed software from your code), and distribute binaries with a more restrictive license that people who need to use them commercially need to pay. As such you have your free software, people with commercial needs give back by paying you and people with non commercial needs can use your software for free. People with commercial needs could compile your software from source but probably won't and probably be happy to pay you a few bucks. I work for a software company that develops an open source wiki enginr (XWiki) and also sell paid GPL'd extension. People actually pay. It helps founding further developments on the wiki engine and the extensions. See also premium WordPress extensions, or open source apps on the Play Store that are downloadable for a few bucks. As a dev, it's gratifying and your users' liberties are respected. I can't recommend this model enough. It can also enable commercial users to contribute code instead of having to find alternatives and directing their money elsewhere. I really believe an open source license can greatly benefit you and your software, helping a community to gather around it. NC will strongly limit how big this community can be. You could also make your binaries downloadable for a fee for everyone and send them for free to whoever sends you a message telling you they want to use your software in a non commercial setting. In any case, you do you and that's already very nice to provide the source code.
0x0000000 3y ago
So license it AGPL if you're worried about them giving back. Trust me, AGPL alone will almost totally discourage commercial use, and then your software will actually be open source, not just source available.
scj 3y ago
https://polyformproject.org/what-is-polyform/ https://polyformproject.org/what-is-polyform/ "PolyForm is not… Open source or free software."
jraph 3y ago
> If you make any written claim that the software infringes or contributes to infringement of any patent, your patent license for the software granted under these terms ends immediately. This seems quite abusive. If I notice that using your software put people at risk of infringing some patent, I should be free to warn people about it. Usually patent clauses are revoked when the user sues the author over patent infringement and this is arguably already bad (though I have no sympathy for patents, one could argue that it's fair game). But this clause is quite nasty.
JohnTHaller 3y ago
The source is available, but it is not open source by the accepted definition used within the open source community: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ Lots of source available projects are not open source. The source code being available on GitHub means that the source is available, not that it is open. I can post my copyrighted source code only permits me to use it in a project on GitHub. That doesn't make it open.
- palata 3y ago
  Agreed. I just want to stress that all code is copyrighted. If there is no license granting rights on the code, then you are not allowed to use it. Source-available or not.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Yes, this is an important point. In the US, anyway, it's all copyrighted. You can't opt out. Also, OSS and FSF licenses wouldn't be effective if the code being licensed wasn't under copyright.
    - palata 3y ago
      Actually, reading the Github Terms of Service: https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... > If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). It doesn't say "modify", but it says "use [...] through the GitHub Service". I wonder if that means that all the code publicly available on GitHub can be used (but not modified) even if there is no license?
WWLink 3y ago
If you were claiming that your project was free and open source on the front page, that would be very misleading and dangerous for software engineers at a company who may inadvertently use your code at their job in a professional manner and then get their employer sued for violating the terms of the license. I'm not sure how well that would hold up in court, because every other "free for non-commercial use" license I've seen was VERY up-front about that and had some call-out for professional-use license pricing. Using dubious marketing for a software product that isn't free for all uses would only tarnish the reputation of open source projects that ARE free. Eventually you get a company where someone was familiar with a lawsuit and makes a rule where using open source code is forbidden. Is that the path you want to go down?
- drewcoo 3y ago
  > that would be very misleading and dangerous for software engineers at a company who may inadvertently use your code at their job in a professional manner and then get their employer sued for violating the terms of the license So there's another point of confusion/disagreement. I don't recall open source ever meaning "no restrictions." Copyleft, for example, is OSS with the restriction that any future use must also be OSS and copyleft.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > software engineers at a company who may inadvertently use your code at their job in a professional manner and then get their employer sued for violating the terms of the license. Every place I've ever worked treats OSS in exactly the same way as closed-source software. You don't get to just use it based on your own judgement as a dev. You have to request to use it, which involves providing the license it is under to legal and getting their approval. In most cases, legal will require a commercial license to be purchased if that's an option (even for OSS) because they value the legal certainty more than the cost of the commercial license.
bityard 3y ago
Well I clicked on the site and I don't see anywhere where you call it open source software, in fact your FAQ explicitly says that the licenses you provide are not open source. So what's the matter with just defending that position? Or ignoring those who don't read? People are allowed to not like software that's not open source. (And open source DOES have a particular definition. Which is very much not, "it's on github so it must be open source!")

by 2h 3y ago

ilyt 3y ago

> And without fail, people will howl ITS NOT OPEN SOURCE. They ignore that the code is on GitHub, and as long as you're not trying to make money with it, then do whatever you want with it Could just... not say that it is open source when it is not. The widely used definition of open is not limiting the usage of the code, not "just" showing the source code. "All rights reserved" code is still all rights reserved even if you put the code out there. > I don't like the idea of companies getting code for free and giving nothing back. Doesn't GPL/AGPL prevent that enough?

LadyCailin 3y ago
To me, “open source” means you can see the source code. “Free software” means you don’t have to pay for the binary. “Libre software” means you can do what you like with the software. The terms get conflated, but it seems to me that when you want to argue semantics, these are quite clear definitions.
- mook 3y ago
  My understanding is that "you can see the source code" is typically labeled "source available". "Don't have to pay for the binary" is sometimes "free as in beer", or if you're using floppy disks, "freeware" (though that term seems to have fallen out of use).
  - LordDragonfang 3y ago
    >typically labeled "source available" I have literally only seen Free Software folks claiming this in similar discussions to this, and have not once seen that term used in practice (I'm sure you can find at least one example, but it's far from being common). The typical term for this is still "open source" whether it technically conforms to the OSI definition or not.
    - ilyt 3y ago
      Yes, the people who created invented what open source is are the folks claiming that, how bizzare /s And corporations that try to get some free marketing and code I guess. The term is clear - lack of limitations of usage for the code makes it open source. If you put any limitations, whether noncommercial, "not for evil" etc. it stops being open. It's not hard. If you close a door, it's not open anymore.
      - LordDragonfang 3y ago
        > lack of limitations of usage for the code makes it open source. Except the GPL has a huge limitation (can only be used in GPL code) which "closes the door" to a lot of uses, and yet it's the gold standard.
    - palata 3y ago
      > The typical term for this is still "open source" whether it technically conforms to the OSI definition or not. Well, the typical term coming from people who don't understand the terms. That's why there is a need to explain them, repeatedly.
- rhn_mk1 3y ago
  They might be clear, but they are not universally accepted. Ultimately, usage makes the definition.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    And doing that should be condemned, especially that in this case it is mostly to further corporate interest. What next, gotta call Windows "open source"?
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > gotta call Windows "open source"? Just wait. That's coming.
  - palata 3y ago
    I am fine with usage making the definition if that's not destroying the concepts. People who use "open source" for "source-available" don't seem to have another word for what is actually called "open source". What does that mean? Do they just use whatever code they find online the way they want? They surely use open source code, so somehow they should have a need for a word that design open source software.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  > To me, “open source” means you can see the source code. To me, "sugar" means cane sugar, so I should be able to call food that's full of HFCS "sugar free".
  - toast0 3y ago
    I mean, might as well go with if you don't have to pay for the sugar, you can call it "sugar free".
  - ilyt 3y ago
    Your ignorance is not everyone's else problem and the ignorant should not be catered for
- ilyt 3y ago
  It's not to the law. The fact you see the source doesn't mean you can just take and use it. > “Libre software” means you can do what you like with the software. The terms get conflated, but it seems to me that when you want to argue semantics, these are quite clear definitions. The term was perfectly clear before people like you tried to conflate it by throwing bullshit terms like "libre software"
- pessimizer 3y ago
  To me, "Open Source" means an OSI-approved license, and "Free Software" means a FSF-approved license. Any redefinition of these (quite strange) terms means that somebody is trying to make money piggybacking off of the goodwill that FOSS has generated. If your source is available, tell people that your source is available. If you're not going to charge for your software, call it "free software" if you want to confuse people, say it's available for free if you don't. Otherwise I'm going to start selling apples that are 30% plastic as organic.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > To me, "Open Source" means an OSI-approved license, and "Free Software" means a FSF-approved license. I mostly agree, although I don't think they have to use the official licenses to qualify for the terms. Your license does have to adhere to the underlying principles those official licenses are built on, though! And this is where things fall down a bit, because too many people don't understand that these terms have very specific meanings and end up misusing them.
    - palata 3y ago
      > too many people don't understand that these terms have very specific meanings and end up misusing them. Agreed. But the solution is to educate them :).
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        It is, yes. And here is where I'm a bit selfish -- after many years of doing that and ending up in countless emotional arguments with people who want the terms to mean things they objectively do not mean, I've grown weary of the fight. That, in the end, is why I've stopped doing that. I don't say that thinking it's the right thing. I say that just out of plain, weary, honesty.
- palata 3y ago
  Respectfully, I think you are wrong. "Source-available" means that you can see the source code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software. If I make a library, publish the source code online, and do NOT add a license, then you are not allowed to use it. "Open-source" means more, including (among others) free redistribution and derived works: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/. If I make a library an publish the source code under an open source license (permissive or not), then you can use it under the conditions of that license. "Free/Libre" means that the end-user keeps the open source rights, i.e. the rights to view and modify the free/libre code running in the product they bought. If you build a product by assembling permissive-licensed libraries, you can sell it as proprietary code (with some attribution). So your customers have somehow "lost" some of the open source rights you got. If you build a product by assembling copyleft-licensed libraries, then you need to provide those libraries to your customers; they kept their rights.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
NotYourLawyer 3y ago
It is open source. It’s just not free. There’s been a lot of effort to conflate those terms over the years.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  Are you saying the Open Source Definition isn't the definition of open source?
  - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
    https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ I’m saying that there is a large amount of software out there that calls itself open source but that doesn’t meet these terms.
    - jraph 3y ago
      I have never run into such software and it would be wrong to do this. Open source is a well understood and non-controversial designation. If you are a developer you have run into the OSD for sure and therefore, even if you don't agree with this use of the expression, if your goal is to be clear and understood, you'd be a fool to call your software open source if it does not use an OSI approved license because it would be confusing and you'd be aware of this fact. The usual qualifier for software with available source code is source-available. There's no doubt about it. We really don't need even more confusion around the terms of free software and open source than we already have.
    - ilyt 3y ago
      ...like ? Where is that "large amount"? The two I remember (Mongo and Elastic) were shat on for their license change and fake open source.
      - jraph 3y ago
        Yes, the name of their license, Server-Side Public License, is a bit confusing because of the Public License part that sounds like the name of an open source license, but that's all. IIRC their communication at the time was somewhat confusing too, but the problem is solved now. Assuming no evil intents, MongoDB might have been confused themselves, genuinely thinking the SSPL was actually open source, since they tried to submit it for approval to the OSI. At the time it was unclear the license was not open source, even if some people immediately noticed issues with it.
majormajor 3y ago
It's not clear here if the poster you're replying to claims it's "open source" or if it's just source code on Github with a non-commercial license itself that offends some.

pantojax45 3y ago

> And without fail, people will howl ITS NOT OPEN SOURCE. Right, they mean that, as a user, you are not free to use the software for any purpose, nor are you free to change it in any way. Whether open source is morally/ethically better is separate from its definition. It's fine for you to say you only want to support non-commercial use, but if you call it "Open Source" it dilutes the definition.

candiddevmike 3y ago

How do you see yourself enforcing that license?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jraph 3y ago
This is a question that is valid for any open source / free software project too. Or any software project, really, source available or not. In the end, it's hard work to actually enforce any license and can cost a lot of time, energy and money. That said, I would trust any OSI or FSF-approved license, they've been reviewed by a lot of people including lawyers. but this one does not seem very solid.

jraph 3y ago

That's because there are legitimate commercial uses. I'm sure you could find some cases that you would agree with. For instance would you disagree with your baker who does not make an insane amount of money to use your software? or some group of people paid to work towards a cause close to your heart? NC makes your software far less useful and may have unintended consequences. Free software is also a means for the human civilization to build public commons cooperatively and NC prevents that a bit. Many desirable and useful things are made in a commercial setting. Unfortunately, people need money to live. Non commercial stuff can only happen in the time that remains. Even in this time left: I'm in a choir that does not make any profit. Can we use your NC software even if we pay our director or if we make people coming to our concerts pay? In doubt I would not. You could make your code open source copyleft (so people cannot lock you out by building closed software from your code), and distribute binaries with a more restrictive license that people who need to use them commercially need to pay. As such you have your free software, people with commercial needs give back by paying you and people with non commercial needs can use your software for free. People with commercial needs could compile your software from source but probably won't and probably be happy to pay you a few bucks. I work for a software company that develops an open source wiki enginr (XWiki) and also sell paid GPL'd extension. People actually pay. It helps founding further developments on the wiki engine and the extensions. See also premium WordPress extensions, or open source apps on the Play Store that are downloadable for a few bucks. As a dev, it's gratifying and your users' liberties are respected. I can't recommend this model enough. It can also enable commercial users to contribute code instead of having to find alternatives and directing their money elsewhere. I really believe an open source license can greatly benefit you and your software, helping a community to gather around it. NC will strongly limit how big this community can be. You could also make your binaries downloadable for a fee for everyone and send them for free to whoever sends you a message telling you they want to use your software in a non commercial setting. In any case, you do you and that's already very nice to provide the source code.

0x0000000 3y ago

So license it AGPL if you're worried about them giving back. Trust me, AGPL alone will almost totally discourage commercial use, and then your software will actually be open source, not just source available.

scj 3y ago

https://polyformproject.org/what-is-polyform/ https://polyformproject.org/what-is-polyform/ "PolyForm is not… Open source or free software."

jraph 3y ago

> If you make any written claim that the software infringes or contributes to infringement of any patent, your patent license for the software granted under these terms ends immediately. This seems quite abusive. If I notice that using your software put people at risk of infringing some patent, I should be free to warn people about it. Usually patent clauses are revoked when the user sues the author over patent infringement and this is arguably already bad (though I have no sympathy for patents, one could argue that it's fair game). But this clause is quite nasty.

JohnTHaller 3y ago

The source is available, but it is not open source by the accepted definition used within the open source community: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ Lots of source available projects are not open source. The source code being available on GitHub means that the source is available, not that it is open. I can post my copyrighted source code only permits me to use it in a project on GitHub. That doesn't make it open.

palata 3y ago
Agreed. I just want to stress that all code is copyrighted. If there is no license granting rights on the code, then you are not allowed to use it. Source-available or not.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Yes, this is an important point. In the US, anyway, it's all copyrighted. You can't opt out. Also, OSS and FSF licenses wouldn't be effective if the code being licensed wasn't under copyright.
  - palata 3y ago
    Actually, reading the Github Terms of Service: https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... > If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). It doesn't say "modify", but it says "use [...] through the GitHub Service". I wonder if that means that all the code publicly available on GitHub can be used (but not modified) even if there is no license?

WWLink 3y ago

If you were claiming that your project was free and open source on the front page, that would be very misleading and dangerous for software engineers at a company who may inadvertently use your code at their job in a professional manner and then get their employer sued for violating the terms of the license. I'm not sure how well that would hold up in court, because every other "free for non-commercial use" license I've seen was VERY up-front about that and had some call-out for professional-use license pricing. Using dubious marketing for a software product that isn't free for all uses would only tarnish the reputation of open source projects that ARE free. Eventually you get a company where someone was familiar with a lawsuit and makes a rule where using open source code is forbidden. Is that the path you want to go down?

drewcoo 3y ago
> that would be very misleading and dangerous for software engineers at a company who may inadvertently use your code at their job in a professional manner and then get their employer sued for violating the terms of the license So there's another point of confusion/disagreement. I don't recall open source ever meaning "no restrictions." Copyleft, for example, is OSS with the restriction that any future use must also be OSS and copyleft.
JohnFen 3y ago
> software engineers at a company who may inadvertently use your code at their job in a professional manner and then get their employer sued for violating the terms of the license. Every place I've ever worked treats OSS in exactly the same way as closed-source software. You don't get to just use it based on your own judgement as a dev. You have to request to use it, which involves providing the license it is under to legal and getting their approval. In most cases, legal will require a commercial license to be purchased if that's an option (even for OSS) because they value the legal certainty more than the cost of the commercial license.

bityard 3y ago

Well I clicked on the site and I don't see anywhere where you call it open source software, in fact your FAQ explicitly says that the licenses you provide are not open source. So what's the matter with just defending that position? Or ignoring those who don't read? People are allowed to not like software that's not open source. (And open source DOES have a particular definition. Which is very much not, "it's on github so it must be open source!")