4 ms·

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

by ternaryoperator 2y ago

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“… ;-)
        saghm 2y ago
        I can simultaneously understand what's meant when people say "open source" versus "source available" and still think that it's a silly, poorly-named distinction and therefore compare it to "champagne" versus "sparkling cider".
- 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/

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“… ;-)
        saghm 2y ago
        I can simultaneously understand what's meant when people say "open source" versus "source available" and still think that it's a silly, poorly-named distinction and therefore compare it to "champagne" versus "sparkling cider".
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/