4 ms·

I don't get all the negativity RE: kerf not being open source in this thread. It's obvious the implementation is not free software (check the README in the actu

I don't get all the negativity RE: kerf not being open source in this thread. It's obvious the implementation is not free software (check the README in the actual submission) because the author wants to sell commercial licenses. Nothing inherently bad about that -- some of us need to make a living. The query language and concepts which are explained in the documentation are an exciting/novel (at least to me) contribution and "out in the open" for everybody to see/discuss/adapt/improve upon. Let's not dismiss that because we can't read the source.

jcwilde 11y ago
Strangely, there was no negatively in the comment you replied to, they were simply asking if is is open-source or not, as it didn't align with their expectations of github-hosted projects (I would argue this would be the case for most people). Contrary to what you state, it is _not_ clear from the README that this is a commercial venture, just that the author provides an email address for any queries in relation to licensing, and actually includes _no_ copyright or restrictions on running the code in the provided documentation. One might even assume that since we've been provided a copy of the binary without any notices, we might be free to run said code without restrictions... but really, who knows? Hence the OP's questions.