5 ms·

APPROPRIATELY-SIZED WARNING: The website and GitHub repo do not make it immediately obvious that this project isn't open source* and that if you use it at work

APPROPRIATELY-SIZED WARNING: The website and GitHub repo do not make it immediately obvious that this project isn't open source* and that if you use it at work your company may have a bad time. *: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ I wonder if we could add something like crowd-voted tags to submissions, to include e.g. the license for software that has a GitHub link.

amanzi 3y ago
Seemed pretty obvious to me after looking at the "Support & Licensing" section of the website. They explain it in clear terms.
- wredue 3y ago
  [flagged]
w10-1 3y ago
LICENSE file in the repo is also pretty clear in its intended limitations. However for the license to be effective it probably needs to be rewritten to handle agents of organizations. As it reads now, arguably 30 employees could deploy the software on 500 6-core mac's without violating the license.
Dalewyn 3y ago
If you obtain and use software for commercial purposes without checking the licensing and usage terms, you need to grab a lawyer and have him give you a crash course at your leisure before some lawyers come knocking to give you a crash course at their leisure.
taspeotis 3y ago
https://tart.run/licensing/ https://tart.run/licensing/
xyst 3y ago
Licenses like this inspire me to recreate it from scratch and redistribute under open source. Some would call this a “race to the bottom” but I see it as doing my part to contribute to chaos
- naikrovek 3y ago
  No need; prior to this license they licensed it under AGPLv3, even though it is not a network service. You can use that version as-is or you could extend it. Commits prior to the 1.0 release and the license change are there in GitHub, last I looked.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pvg 3y ago
if we could add something like crowd-voted tags to submissions the repetitive license threads already add too much noise to most submissions (there are already two in this one) - anyone interested in using this can just read the license that comes with the repo. Just about every submission has more interesting things to discuss than license stuff.
filleduchaos 3y ago
Pretty much nothing about the website and repo indicated that this is an open source project. Why would anyone just assume that it is? Hell, one of the quick links at the top of the home page is "Support & Licensing". Open source licensing is still licensing. I feel like people increasingly treat it as "yay freebies for me" and not as actual licenses that you still have to look for, read, and comply with.
- cjbprime 3y ago
  > Pretty much nothing about the website and repo indicated that this is an open source project. Why would anyone just assume that it is? There is a prominent GitHub link to the codebase. I think the GitHub terms of service demand that public repo owners grant public downloaders minimal rights to view and use (but not necessarily redistribute) the code. But the LICENSE file disallows use of the code to some. If the GitHub ToS does what I recall, it seems possible that the copyright license and the repo's presence on GitHub are actually in conflict with each other. (I'm not at all expert here, though.)

amanzi 3y ago

Seemed pretty obvious to me after looking at the "Support & Licensing" section of the website. They explain it in clear terms.

wredue 3y ago
[flagged]

w10-1 3y ago

LICENSE file in the repo is also pretty clear in its intended limitations. However for the license to be effective it probably needs to be rewritten to handle agents of organizations. As it reads now, arguably 30 employees could deploy the software on 500 6-core mac's without violating the license.

Dalewyn 3y ago

If you obtain and use software for commercial purposes without checking the licensing and usage terms, you need to grab a lawyer and have him give you a crash course at your leisure before some lawyers come knocking to give you a crash course at their leisure.

taspeotis 3y ago

https://tart.run/licensing/ https://tart.run/licensing/

xyst 3y ago

Licenses like this inspire me to recreate it from scratch and redistribute under open source. Some would call this a “race to the bottom” but I see it as doing my part to contribute to chaos

naikrovek 3y ago
No need; prior to this license they licensed it under AGPLv3, even though it is not a network service. You can use that version as-is or you could extend it. Commits prior to the 1.0 release and the license change are there in GitHub, last I looked.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pvg 3y ago

if we could add something like crowd-voted tags to submissions the repetitive license threads already add too much noise to most submissions (there are already two in this one) - anyone interested in using this can just read the license that comes with the repo. Just about every submission has more interesting things to discuss than license stuff.

filleduchaos 3y ago

Pretty much nothing about the website and repo indicated that this is an open source project. Why would anyone just assume that it is? Hell, one of the quick links at the top of the home page is "Support & Licensing". Open source licensing is still licensing. I feel like people increasingly treat it as "yay freebies for me" and not as actual licenses that you still have to look for, read, and comply with.

cjbprime 3y ago
> Pretty much nothing about the website and repo indicated that this is an open source project. Why would anyone just assume that it is? There is a prominent GitHub link to the codebase. I think the GitHub terms of service demand that public repo owners grant public downloaders minimal rights to view and use (but not necessarily redistribute) the code. But the LICENSE file disallows use of the code to some. If the GitHub ToS does what I recall, it seems possible that the copyright license and the repo's presence on GitHub are actually in conflict with each other. (I'm not at all expert here, though.)