4 ms·

> Open Source The CC-NC-SA-4.0 license isn't an Open Source Definition compliant license, since it discriminates against a field of use (commercial application

by pabs3 1y ago

> Open Source The CC-NC-SA-4.0 license isn't an Open Source Definition compliant license, since it discriminates against a field of use (commercial applications). https://github.com/ClemensElflein/OpenMower/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/ClemensElflein/OpenMower/blob/main/LICENS... https://opensourcedefinition.org/ https://opensourcedefinition.org/ A reminder, open source means surrendering your monopoly over commercial exploitation: https://drewdevault.com/2021/01/20/FOSS-is-to-surrender-your-monopoly.html https://drewdevault.com/2021/01/20/FOSS-is-to-surrender-your...

OneDeuxTriSeiGo 1y ago
It's worth noting that the project is CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 however it comes with a notice that other licenses are available if you content them directly. So it may not be open source under the strict definition however the project is also not staunchly anti-commercial. > Feel free to use the design in your private/educational projects, but don't try to sell the design or products based on it without getting my consent first. The idea here is to share knowledge, not to enable others to simply sell my work. Thank you for understanding.
- lambda 1y ago
  It's simply not open source. It doesn't meet the definition. It's co-opting the term to call it open source. This has been debated and settled. What people mean by open source or free software has a well agreed upon definition, and this isn't it.
  - echelon 1y ago
    Open source has been turned against us and used to build hyperscalers that effectively control modern computing. Pure open source is also not a sustainable business model. You have to be open core or non-commercial, otherwise anyone and everyone can steal your lunch. You're asking for the right to compete when they've given you every other single right there is. That's just not nice.
    - jabl 1y ago
      > Open source has been turned against us and used to build hyperscalers that effectively control modern computing. > Pure open source is also not a sustainable business model. You have to be open core or non-commercial, otherwise anyone and everyone can steal your lunch. Maybe, but beside the point. The point is "don't call whatever you're doing open source if it isn't open source (per the generally accepted definition which you can read e.g. at https://opensourcedefinition.org/ https://opensourcedefinition.org/ )". No moral judgement here whether open source is morally superior or not, or whether open source is for suckers because the hyperscalers will co-opt it, or whatever. If you don't want to do open source, then don't, but don't go and call it open source.
echelon 1y ago
[flagged]
- pests 1y ago
  > Or WP Engine, which basically lifted WordPress wholesale and gives absolutely nothing back. I understand (tho not agree with you) up until this point. Don’t forget Wordpress was not originally Wordpress, you would say they “basically lifted b2/cafepress wholesale and gave nothing back”. Wordpress wouldn’t exist otherwise.
- notpushkin 1y ago
  > I 100% commend CC-BY-SA-NC and other fair source licenses. These are sustainable efforts. Funnily enough, the CC BY-SA-NC is not a fair source license, as it doesn’t include a provision for delayed open source publication. It is quite important, actually: > DOSP ensures that if a Fair Source company goes out of business, or develops its products in an undesired direction, the community or another company can pick up and move forward. Will this be meaningful in practice? Again, time will tell. – https://fair.io/about/ https://fair.io/about/ But I do agree with the sentiment otherwise.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- dokyun 1y ago
  > I'm sick of open source purism. > Open source purism - especially for non-viral MIT and BSD licenses - is how Google and Microsoft and Amazon stole from the commons and turned it against us. So why don't you advocate for Free Software which has always worked in the interest of the commons and provided the GPL as a way to combat this, instead of something else that isn't free and restricts the freedom of users more than a weak license?
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    Because before your know it your very much open source company called Prusa will end up being competed with by subsidized stuff from the east based on your own work.
buildsjets 1y ago
It's open source to people and organizations who are not assholes and thieves. I don't care about my fake internet points, so have at it.
- foxglacier 1y ago
  You don't like open source but want to ride off its good name so you're co-opting the term to mean something else. We already have a widely accepted term for this type of license - "source available".
- benrutter 1y ago
  I kinda think "open" is a word that's immediately undermined by any qualification. I'm really down for more variety with licenses like this one, but "open source" has become really unhelpful because it's used for: - Open source for half the code, and the other half is proprietary - Open source as long as you aren't a company - Open source as long as you aren't a company competing with us It's helpful to have a term for "free to do whatever you want with", but we don't really have on that doesn't get misused elsewhere right now.

by pabs3 1y ago

OneDeuxTriSeiGo 1y ago

It's worth noting that the project is CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 however it comes with a notice that other licenses are available if you content them directly. So it may not be open source under the strict definition however the project is also not staunchly anti-commercial. > Feel free to use the design in your private/educational projects, but don't try to sell the design or products based on it without getting my consent first. The idea here is to share knowledge, not to enable others to simply sell my work. Thank you for understanding.

lambda 1y ago
It's simply not open source. It doesn't meet the definition. It's co-opting the term to call it open source. This has been debated and settled. What people mean by open source or free software has a well agreed upon definition, and this isn't it.
- echelon 1y ago
  Open source has been turned against us and used to build hyperscalers that effectively control modern computing. Pure open source is also not a sustainable business model. You have to be open core or non-commercial, otherwise anyone and everyone can steal your lunch. You're asking for the right to compete when they've given you every other single right there is. That's just not nice.
  - jabl 1y ago
    > Open source has been turned against us and used to build hyperscalers that effectively control modern computing. > Pure open source is also not a sustainable business model. You have to be open core or non-commercial, otherwise anyone and everyone can steal your lunch. Maybe, but beside the point. The point is "don't call whatever you're doing open source if it isn't open source (per the generally accepted definition which you can read e.g. at https://opensourcedefinition.org/ https://opensourcedefinition.org/ )". No moral judgement here whether open source is morally superior or not, or whether open source is for suckers because the hyperscalers will co-opt it, or whatever. If you don't want to do open source, then don't, but don't go and call it open source.

echelon 1y ago

[flagged]

pests 1y ago
> Or WP Engine, which basically lifted WordPress wholesale and gives absolutely nothing back. I understand (tho not agree with you) up until this point. Don’t forget Wordpress was not originally Wordpress, you would say they “basically lifted b2/cafepress wholesale and gave nothing back”. Wordpress wouldn’t exist otherwise.
notpushkin 1y ago
> I 100% commend CC-BY-SA-NC and other fair source licenses. These are sustainable efforts. Funnily enough, the CC BY-SA-NC is not a fair source license, as it doesn’t include a provision for delayed open source publication. It is quite important, actually: > DOSP ensures that if a Fair Source company goes out of business, or develops its products in an undesired direction, the community or another company can pick up and move forward. Will this be meaningful in practice? Again, time will tell. – https://fair.io/about/ https://fair.io/about/ But I do agree with the sentiment otherwise.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
dokyun 1y ago
> I'm sick of open source purism. > Open source purism - especially for non-viral MIT and BSD licenses - is how Google and Microsoft and Amazon stole from the commons and turned it against us. So why don't you advocate for Free Software which has always worked in the interest of the commons and provided the GPL as a way to combat this, instead of something else that isn't free and restricts the freedom of users more than a weak license?
- jacquesm 1y ago
  Because before your know it your very much open source company called Prusa will end up being competed with by subsidized stuff from the east based on your own work.

buildsjets 1y ago

It's open source to people and organizations who are not assholes and thieves. I don't care about my fake internet points, so have at it.

foxglacier 1y ago
You don't like open source but want to ride off its good name so you're co-opting the term to mean something else. We already have a widely accepted term for this type of license - "source available".
benrutter 1y ago
I kinda think "open" is a word that's immediately undermined by any qualification. I'm really down for more variety with licenses like this one, but "open source" has become really unhelpful because it's used for: - Open source for half the code, and the other half is proprietary - Open source as long as you aren't a company - Open source as long as you aren't a company competing with us It's helpful to have a term for "free to do whatever you want with", but we don't really have on that doesn't get misused elsewhere right now.