5 ms·
"Licenses which only permit non-commercial redistribution or modification of the source code for personal use only are generally not considered as open-source l
by 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.