Hacker News Reader

Comment by RobotToaster | Hacker News Reader

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

It violates point 1,5 and 6 of the open source definition https://opensource.org/osd

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.

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

Was that the OSI discord server? ;) 14 votes in a specific bubble isn't all that representative either.

It's calculator programming related so I'd say not biased in any particular way other than having a lot of hobbyist techy people

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.

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

Nice change!

ELv2 is not open source either.

It is not OSI® Open Source Definition™ approved, but it is open source for the common use of the term.

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.

That is according to OSI. OSI does not get to dictate the english language.

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.

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.

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.

if you want to call it open source, why not consider AGPL?

I genuinely recommend putting something like AGPL if you wish to go towards Open Source route.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com