5 ms·
'Open source' and 'free (as in speech)' are, in the software context, synonyms. It is incoherent to say 'open source but non-commercial'.
by memefrog 3y ago
'Open source' and 'free (as in speech)' are, in the software context, synonyms. It is incoherent to say 'open source but non-commercial'.
- gcau 3y agoI disagree. You're basically saying, "open source code isn't open-source". There's nothing incoherent about what they said.
- NavinF 3y ago"Licenses which only permit non-commercial redistribution or modification of the source code for personal use only are generally not considered as open-source licenses. However, open-source licenses may have some restrictions, particularly regarding the expression of respect to the origin of software, such as a requirement to preserve the name of the authors and a copyright statement within the code, or a requirement to redistribute the licensed software only under the same license (as in a copyleft license)" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source "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" https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ If you don't allow commercial use, your code is "source-available", not "open source" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
- Kiro 3y agoCommon speak disagrees with you and that's all that matters.
- memefrog 3y agoNo, it doesn't. Everyone knows what 'open source' means: what the open source definition says. Literally the *only* place on the Internet where people pretend this isn't true is HN. I have never seen anyone suggest that 'open source' means anything else anywhere else.
- gcau 3y agoI have the exact opposite experience.
- gcau 3y agoI just disagree and use a different definition of open source than you/your sources (many people share my definition, mind you). If the source is open, its open-source. It can be free, commercial, or have any license. I feel like people with the other definition of OS, do it because they have a vendetta against companies that open-source code with a non-free license.
- memefrog 3y ago>I feel like people with the other definition of OS, do it because they have a vendetta against companies that open-source code with a non-free license. No. It is because that's what the term means and has *ALWAYS* meant. You don't get to just turn up and change the definition of a term that has been fixed and useful as a term for decades. This isn't the evolution of language. It's just you ignorantly being unaware of the actual definition and using your own.
- gcau 3y agoI can and I am.
- memefrog 3y agoNo, I am saying open source code is open source. Open source has had an established, fixed definition for decades. It was coined for a specific purpose to represent a particular category of software licence. You are doing a disservice to anyone reading what you write if you use a term with a fixed, established definition to mean something completely different without signalling that you are doing so. Language is for communication.
- Kiro 3y agoIt doesn't matter. Your definition is legacy and not what open source refers to in common speak.
- memefrog 3y agoI don't know what 'your definition is legacy' means. Could you try to speak English? 'Open source' has meant the same thing for decades. Its meaning has not changed.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Kiro 3y ago> Could you try to speak English? Nice way to invalidate any current or future arguments you may have.
- ben_w 3y agoCC-NC isn't OS for you?
- memefrog 3y agoIt isn't open source to anyone, by the universally accepted definition of "open source" that has obtained for decades.
- TZubiri 3y agoAre you deliberately invoking the Stallman acolytes?