4 ms·
It's not open source, as it uses the Commons Clause which severely limits what can be done with it (the name is misleading).
by mkl 3y ago
It's not open source, as it uses the Commons Clause which severely limits what can be done with it (the name is misleading).
- prartichoke 3y agoAs far as a quick google search got me, it seems pretty open with the only caveat being you can't sell or monetize it... how is that not open source?
- aryonoco 3y agoIf you put any restrictions on usage or what can be done with it (like selling), then it's absolutely not open source. open source doesn't mean source code is there. open source has a specific definition. There is a list of acceptable open source licenses, as defined by OSI. similarly there is a list of acceptable free software licenses, as defined by FSF. Broadly, the two lists are the same. Commons Clause is definitely not open source.
- bityard 3y agoThere exists a niche of commercial software developers who are actively attempting to water down the commonly accepted meaning of "open source" for their own gain, and I suspect they are voting you down. :(
- j1elo 3y agoNot sure why you're being downvoted. Even the Commons Clause itself is clear about it: https://commonsclause.com/#faq https://commonsclause.com/#faq > Is this “Open Source”? > No.
- jonatanheyman 3y agoI didn't put too much consideration into picking a license. If someone has compelling arguments for why I should license it differently, I would absolutely consider it.
- mkl 3y agoIf you want to make commercial profit unlikely but encourage contributions and widespread use, GPL would probably work better than Commons Clause.