Hacker News Reader

Comment by mkl | Hacker News Reader

It's not open source, as it uses the Commons Clause which severely limits what can be done with it (the name is misleading).

View on HN

As far as a quick google search got me, it seems pretty open with the only caveat being you can't sell or monetize it... how is that not open source?

If you put any restrictions on usage or what can be done with it (like selling), then it's absolutely not open source.

open source doesn't mean source code is there. open source has a specific definition. There is a list of acceptable open source licenses, as defined by OSI. similarly there is a list of acceptable free software licenses, as defined by FSF. Broadly, the two lists are the same. Commons Clause is definitely not open source.

Not sure why you're being downvoted. Even the Commons Clause itself is clear about it:

https://commonsclause.com/#faq

> Is this “Open Source”?

> No.

There exists a niche of commercial software developers who are actively attempting to water down the commonly accepted meaning of "open source" for their own gain, and I suspect they are voting you down. :(

I didn't put too much consideration into picking a license. If someone has compelling arguments for why I should license it differently, I would absolutely consider it.

If you want to make commercial profit unlikely but encourage contributions and widespread use, GPL would probably work better than Commons Clause.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com