4 ms·

Campsite is not open source. From the LICENSE file on the repo [0]: > Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International [0] https://github.com/camp

Campsite is not open source. From the LICENSE file on the repo [0]: > Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International [0] https://github.com/campsite/campsite/blob/dae5db8611e8adc0571777c9272ab6165eea8f76/LICENSE https://github.com/campsite/campsite/blob/dae5db8611e8adc057...

ternaryoperator 2y ago
Creative Commons isn't a bar to being open source, but the Non-Commercial part certainly is. Definitely not OSS.
- mcmcmc 2y ago
  If the source code is publicly available, that is open source. What you mean is that it is not FOSS.
  - RobotToaster 2y ago
    It doesn't meet the open source definition point 6, since it discriminates against fields of endeavour https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd (possibly point 5 as well, if a commercial entity counts as a "group of people")
  - 47282847 2y ago
    A typical distinction is „source available“ or „public source“ vs „open source“ (no restrictions on use other than potentially keeping the openness intact and attribution).
    - saghm 2y ago
      It's only "open source" if it's from the OSI region of France. Otherwise, it's just "sparkling available".
      - eptcyka 2y ago
        The difference here is more important than that.
        saghm 2y ago
        I'm sure the people who insist on the proper usage of the term "champagne" claim their linguistic crusade is important too!
        gus_massa 2y ago
        Imagine a "champagne" you can't use for parties. [1] Ok, your birthday party and weeding are excluded. If you are in a dinner at home foe two, is it a party? Funerals? Let's buy a real champagne instead. [1] It has a microphone and a camera and GPS and use AI to detect parties. The data is send to the servers and stored securetely.
        saghm 2y ago
        I don't drink, so I have no opinion on champagne, and I don't use Campsite, so I don't have any opinion on whether the license is reasonable for what it offers. All I know is that the words "open source" and "source available" would look and sound basically synonymous in pretty much any other context, and the common consensus that one of them apparently means something much more prescriptive will never make sense to me from a linguistic perspective.
        47282847 2y ago
        You are going to have a difficult life experience if you cling to the idea that things have to make sense from a linguistic perspective where most others seem to have found acceptance in how things are interpreted and used in the real world. Words are context sensitive. Openness here refers to the user freedoms, which go beyond the permission to read but not reuse. Source that is merely available could be regarded as dangerous, if you happen to later copy ideas from the proprietary origin in your own implementation without even being aware of it. I could see the point in trying to stay away from it as programmer. Good thing we’re not debating the term “free software“… ;-)
  - chrysoprace 2y ago
    Any of the Creative Commons licenses are not recognised as open source licenses by the Open Source Initiative. [0] [0] https://opensource.org/ https://opensource.org/
sksrbWgbfK 2y ago
Especially since the CC licenses are not recommended for software. Some call it "open-copyright" but I wouldn't use it for my applications. E.g. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/q/777 https://opensource.stackexchange.com/q/777
that_guy_iain 2y ago
Honestly, I find this whole OSI open-source definition annoying. I'm pretty sure if this went to court a judge would say it's legally is open source because the source code is open. The fact, FOSS folk want to add a bunch of requirements to open source to make it harder for commercial software just stinks and that is really what it is. "You can't claim you're open source because you limit competitors using your code for free" Pfft.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  A judge would rule what "open source" means?
  - that_guy_iain 2y ago
    Yes. For example, if I advertised my software as open source and you sued for false advertising. What do you think they don't rule on what things mean?
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  > Honestly, I find this whole OSI open-source definition annoying. Fair enough; I agree that having that one organization be the sole decider of Open Source is weird, so I'll happily accept as open source anything that the FSF or DFSG approve. > "You can't claim you're open source because you limit competitors using your code for free" Pfft. Correct. If you're trying to get the marketing advantage and let other people give you free work, then you get to play fair and other people also benefit. That's what those words mean.
  - that_guy_iain 2y ago
    > Correct. If you're trying to get the marketing advantage and let other people give you free work, then you get to play fair and other people also benefit. That's what those words mean. This free work everyone talks about is not free. They need to maintain it, they need to review it, they need to baby-step new contributors, etc. That costs money. Not to mention, most aren't doing it to get free work. They're giving stuff away and folk are crying because they can't use someone else's work as free work. Look at any major open source product and you'll see nearly all the commits are done by paid employees. Open source is built on free work is a lie. Open Source is largely paid for.
dang 2y ago
Ok, I've attempted to bypass this issue by editing the title above. Submitted title was "Campsite is now open source". If there's a better (more accurate and neutral) title, we can change it again.
- abetusk 2y ago
  The title accurately represented what the repository claimed. From their README.md [0]: > This is an open source version of the Campsite app. [0] https://github.com/campsite/campsite/blob/10197238bbbefd9c9ac7c77467b647fd93993ba0/README.md https://github.com/campsite/campsite/blob/10197238bbbefd9c9a...

ternaryoperator 2y ago

Creative Commons isn't a bar to being open source, but the Non-Commercial part certainly is. Definitely not OSS.

mcmcmc 2y ago
If the source code is publicly available, that is open source. What you mean is that it is not FOSS.
- RobotToaster 2y ago
  It doesn't meet the open source definition point 6, since it discriminates against fields of endeavour https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd (possibly point 5 as well, if a commercial entity counts as a "group of people")
- 47282847 2y ago
  A typical distinction is „source available“ or „public source“ vs „open source“ (no restrictions on use other than potentially keeping the openness intact and attribution).
  - saghm 2y ago
    It's only "open source" if it's from the OSI region of France. Otherwise, it's just "sparkling available".
    - eptcyka 2y ago
      The difference here is more important than that.
      - saghm 2y ago
        I'm sure the people who insist on the proper usage of the term "champagne" claim their linguistic crusade is important too!
        gus_massa 2y ago
        Imagine a "champagne" you can't use for parties. [1] Ok, your birthday party and weeding are excluded. If you are in a dinner at home foe two, is it a party? Funerals? Let's buy a real champagne instead. [1] It has a microphone and a camera and GPS and use AI to detect parties. The data is send to the servers and stored securetely.
        saghm 2y ago
        I don't drink, so I have no opinion on champagne, and I don't use Campsite, so I don't have any opinion on whether the license is reasonable for what it offers. All I know is that the words "open source" and "source available" would look and sound basically synonymous in pretty much any other context, and the common consensus that one of them apparently means something much more prescriptive will never make sense to me from a linguistic perspective.
        47282847 2y ago
        You are going to have a difficult life experience if you cling to the idea that things have to make sense from a linguistic perspective where most others seem to have found acceptance in how things are interpreted and used in the real world. Words are context sensitive. Openness here refers to the user freedoms, which go beyond the permission to read but not reuse. Source that is merely available could be regarded as dangerous, if you happen to later copy ideas from the proprietary origin in your own implementation without even being aware of it. I could see the point in trying to stay away from it as programmer. Good thing we’re not debating the term “free software“… ;-)
- chrysoprace 2y ago
  Any of the Creative Commons licenses are not recognised as open source licenses by the Open Source Initiative. [0] [0] https://opensource.org/ https://opensource.org/

sksrbWgbfK 2y ago

Especially since the CC licenses are not recommended for software. Some call it "open-copyright" but I wouldn't use it for my applications. E.g. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/q/777 https://opensource.stackexchange.com/q/777

that_guy_iain 2y ago

Honestly, I find this whole OSI open-source definition annoying. I'm pretty sure if this went to court a judge would say it's legally is open source because the source code is open. The fact, FOSS folk want to add a bunch of requirements to open source to make it harder for commercial software just stinks and that is really what it is. "You can't claim you're open source because you limit competitors using your code for free" Pfft.

actionfromafar 2y ago
A judge would rule what "open source" means?
- that_guy_iain 2y ago
  Yes. For example, if I advertised my software as open source and you sued for false advertising. What do you think they don't rule on what things mean?
yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
> Honestly, I find this whole OSI open-source definition annoying. Fair enough; I agree that having that one organization be the sole decider of Open Source is weird, so I'll happily accept as open source anything that the FSF or DFSG approve. > "You can't claim you're open source because you limit competitors using your code for free" Pfft. Correct. If you're trying to get the marketing advantage and let other people give you free work, then you get to play fair and other people also benefit. That's what those words mean.
- that_guy_iain 2y ago
  > Correct. If you're trying to get the marketing advantage and let other people give you free work, then you get to play fair and other people also benefit. That's what those words mean. This free work everyone talks about is not free. They need to maintain it, they need to review it, they need to baby-step new contributors, etc. That costs money. Not to mention, most aren't doing it to get free work. They're giving stuff away and folk are crying because they can't use someone else's work as free work. Look at any major open source product and you'll see nearly all the commits are done by paid employees. Open source is built on free work is a lie. Open Source is largely paid for.

dang 2y ago

Ok, I've attempted to bypass this issue by editing the title above. Submitted title was "Campsite is now open source". If there's a better (more accurate and neutral) title, we can change it again.

abetusk 2y ago
The title accurately represented what the repository claimed. From their README.md [0]: > This is an open source version of the Campsite app. [0] https://github.com/campsite/campsite/blob/10197238bbbefd9c9ac7c77467b647fd93993ba0/README.md https://github.com/campsite/campsite/blob/10197238bbbefd9c9a...