3 ms·

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 n

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.

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.