4 ms·

This is absolutely not an open source license https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0

This is absolutely not an open source license https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/ It violates point 1,5 and 6 of the open source definition https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

mohebifar 7mo ago
You are absolutely right. I just changed the license to ELv2.
- throawayonthe 7mo ago
  if you want to call it open source, why not consider AGPL?
- maxloh 7mo ago
  Nice change!
- bilekas 7mo ago
  ELv2 is not open source either.
  - guelo 7mo ago
    It is not OSI® Open Source Definition™ approved, but it is open source for the common use of the term.
    - TimeBearingDown 7mo ago
      The accepted term is "source available". Restrictions on usage type are not commonly accepted as open source by any community that I'm aware of.
      - guelo 7mo ago
        That is according to OSI. OSI does not get to dictate the english language.
    - bilekas 7mo ago
      I don't say it to be pedantic about the term, but there are hard restrictions on usage of this tool in commercial environments.. So it's important people are aware and don't just assume it's an open source.
      - guelo 7mo ago
        Right. OSI tried to use their authority to make it seem like AWS's strip mining of the open source ecosystem was the moral high ground. HN has a lot of wishful commercial operators who side with AWS. So they use "open source" lower case as a weapon to harass the open source developers. Personally I tend to side with the developers who try to figure out a way to keep their projects viable.
- RobotToaster 7mo ago
  That isn't open source either. As far as I know the most restrictive open source license is the AGPL, with a CLA that allows for commercial dual licensing.
- Imustaskforhelp 7mo ago
  I genuinely recommend putting something like AGPL if you wish to go towards Open Source route.
flohofwoe 7mo ago
For nitpicking like that let me do some counter-nitpicking: please write 'Open Source (OSI)', 'Open Source (TM)' or at least capitalize it as 'Open Source' so that people know where you're coming from. The commonly used 'open source' just means 'the source is in the open'. Let's not allow organizations to hijack commonly used words.
- circuit10 7mo ago
  It’s not nitpicking, the term “open source” is not usually used for this kind of thing, it would be called “shared source” I did a poll on this on a Discord server a while ago What does open source mean You can view the source code: 0 votes View + use + redistribute for any purpose: 14 votes So no, your version of it is not the common usage
  - flohofwoe 7mo ago
    Was that the OSI discord server? ;) 14 votes in a specific bubble isn't all that representative either.
    - circuit10 7mo ago
      It's calculator programming related so I'd say not biased in any particular way other than having a lot of hobbyist techy people
- RobotToaster 7mo ago
  Open source has a commonly held definition, it's not nitpicking. I will not let corporations cynically hijack the definition to mean "you can look at the source" the way you suggest.

mohebifar 7mo ago

You are absolutely right. I just changed the license to ELv2.

throawayonthe 7mo ago
if you want to call it open source, why not consider AGPL?
maxloh 7mo ago
Nice change!
bilekas 7mo ago
ELv2 is not open source either.
- guelo 7mo ago
  It is not OSI® Open Source Definition™ approved, but it is open source for the common use of the term.
  - TimeBearingDown 7mo ago
    The accepted term is "source available". Restrictions on usage type are not commonly accepted as open source by any community that I'm aware of.
    - guelo 7mo ago
      That is according to OSI. OSI does not get to dictate the english language.
  - bilekas 7mo ago
    I don't say it to be pedantic about the term, but there are hard restrictions on usage of this tool in commercial environments.. So it's important people are aware and don't just assume it's an open source.
    - guelo 7mo ago
      Right. OSI tried to use their authority to make it seem like AWS's strip mining of the open source ecosystem was the moral high ground. HN has a lot of wishful commercial operators who side with AWS. So they use "open source" lower case as a weapon to harass the open source developers. Personally I tend to side with the developers who try to figure out a way to keep their projects viable.
RobotToaster 7mo ago
That isn't open source either. As far as I know the most restrictive open source license is the AGPL, with a CLA that allows for commercial dual licensing.
Imustaskforhelp 7mo ago
I genuinely recommend putting something like AGPL if you wish to go towards Open Source route.

flohofwoe 7mo ago

For nitpicking like that let me do some counter-nitpicking: please write 'Open Source (OSI)', 'Open Source (TM)' or at least capitalize it as 'Open Source' so that people know where you're coming from. The commonly used 'open source' just means 'the source is in the open'. Let's not allow organizations to hijack commonly used words.

circuit10 7mo ago
It’s not nitpicking, the term “open source” is not usually used for this kind of thing, it would be called “shared source” I did a poll on this on a Discord server a while ago What does open source mean You can view the source code: 0 votes View + use + redistribute for any purpose: 14 votes So no, your version of it is not the common usage
- flohofwoe 7mo ago
  Was that the OSI discord server? ;) 14 votes in a specific bubble isn't all that representative either.
  - circuit10 7mo ago
    It's calculator programming related so I'd say not biased in any particular way other than having a lot of hobbyist techy people
RobotToaster 7mo ago
Open source has a commonly held definition, it's not nitpicking. I will not let corporations cynically hijack the definition to mean "you can look at the source" the way you suggest.