Hacker News Reader

Comment by pgeorgi | Hacker News Reader

You replied to "You deny your users the most basic freedom there is, the freedom to use your software for any purpose without discrimination." and caim that open source isn't about that.

Let's see https://opensource.org/definition-annotated/, _the_ definition for open source, specifically the sections titled "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups" and "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor":

"The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons."

"The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."

So what GP claimed seems to be exactly Open Source's point, no?

View on HN

The way we crafted it is not clear. Our idea is straightforward: if you want to use the software, you can do so for free, whether for personal use or within an organization. However, if you aim to sell it for profit, you need to contribute to its creation in some way; this is why permission is required. At least, that's the case at this early stage.

That means it's zero-cost and source available, not open source. As it's your software that's your choice, but please don't abuse the term "open source" to describe it. It's no more "open source" than, say, DaVinci Resolve is.

> It's no more "open source" than, say, DaVinci Resolve is.

DaVinci Resolve is not source available. Anytype does not restrict you from forking the code as long as it is non-commercial. And it also lets you fork the code for commercial use, if you take their permission.

So it is simply a non-commercial open source license, with permission required for commercial use. Sure, not OSI Approved License™, but certainly "open source". If this was not "open source", neither would be GNU GPL, because it isn't permissive enough.

This is no different from Qt's dual license except that GPL allows commercial use too. Or, like Creative Commons NC licenses, but for software.

Amen!

Open-Source is a generic term. It's the opposite of "closed-source".

The OSI is on the record on this: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

The only people who want to push the whole "The OSI's version of Free Software" defines "open-source" rather than "OSI Approved License™" are the Anti-Property GPL folks that never liked the term "open source" anyway, the trolls that want to force other people to work for free, and the people at the OSI

Yes you are right. It's not even open source...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com