Hacker News Reader

Comment by thyrox | Hacker News Reader

The definition of open source is getting blurry day by day.

Just today I was looking for an infinite scroll JavaScript library and even though it's oss with 7k+ github star, you still need to buy a commercial licence to use it.

I really wish we had separate open source licence for such projects which require a commercial use licence.

(1) https://infinite-scroll.com/

View on HN

The definition of open source requires that you must be allowed to use the software for commercial purposes. While this library does have a commercial license available, it is dual licensed under the GPL 3.0, which is an open source license that allows for commercial use. Therefore it is open source, and of course allows you to use the product in a commercial product, provided you comply with the GPL.

It's a GPL library, which is a copyleft license that actually predates the usage of the term "open source". Just because it's on npm/github doesn't mean you don't need to check the type of license.

It’s a bit confusing but it reads to me that the code is GPL3, so whats the problem?

Open source doesn't mean, that you can use it however you wish to use it. It means that the source is open. This allows for audits and reading the code, perhaps knowing what the tool / library actually does. What you are allowed to do with it however, is a different matter.

If you are looking for something with more ethics and agenda, maybe you are looking for free/libre software.

"It means that the source is open." -> Nope.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition for instance: "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code."

I stand corrected. The differences do matter though. See for example the restrictions of this project.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com