4 ms·
That is not open source. > Any Association grants you (“Licensee”) a license to use, modify, and redistribute the Software, but only (a) for Non-Commercial Use
by yencabulator 3y ago
That is not open source.
> Any Association grants you (“Licensee”) a license to use, modify, and redistribute the Software, but only (a) for Non-Commercial Use, or (b) for Commercial Use in Allowed Networks.
https://github.com/anyproto/anytype-ts/blob/main/LICENSE.md https://github.com/anyproto/anytype-ts/blob/main/LICENSE.md
- hresvelgr 3y agoThat's open source, it's not free and open source.
- yencabulator 3y agohttps://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ > 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. Any restrictions on commercial use make a license not open source.
- hresvelgr 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software > The terminology of FOSS was created to be a neutral on these philosophical disagreements between the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and Open Source Initiative (OSI) and have a single unified term that could refer to both concepts. Conflating open source software with free software isn't precise which is why I prefer FOSS/FLOSS as a term. The conflation you put forward is a political stance, not factual.
- yencabulator 3y agoYou seem to be trying to redefine Open Source to mean something different than what it has meant for nearly two decades. Please don't. Open Source very much includes the principle of no discrimination against commercial use, and has done so from its beginnings.