Campsite is not open source. From the LICENSE file on the repo [0]:
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
[0] https://github.com/campsite/campsite/blob/dae5db8611e8adc057...
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
[0] https://github.com/campsite/campsite/blob/dae5db8611e8adc057...
If there's a better (more accurate and neutral) title, we can change it again.
From their README.md [0]:
> This is an open source version of the Campsite app.
[0] https://github.com/campsite/campsite/blob/10197238bbbefd9c9a...
Ok, your birthday party and weeding are excluded.
If you are in a dinner at home foe two, is it a party?
Funerals?
Let's buy a real champagne instead.
[1] It has a microphone and a camera and GPS and use AI to detect parties. The data is send to the servers and stored securetely.
Words are context sensitive. Openness here refers to the user freedoms, which go beyond the permission to read but not reuse.
Source that is merely available could be regarded as dangerous, if you happen to later copy ideas from the proprietary origin in your own implementation without even being aware of it. I could see the point in trying to stay away from it as programmer.
Good thing we’re not debating the term “free software“… ;-)
I'm pretty sure if this went to court a judge would say it's legally is open source because the source code is open. The fact, FOSS folk want to add a bunch of requirements to open source to make it harder for commercial software just stinks and that is really what it is. "You can't claim you're open source because you limit competitors using your code for free" Pfft.
What do you think they don't rule on what things mean?
Fair enough; I agree that having that one organization be the sole decider of Open Source is weird, so I'll happily accept as open source anything that the FSF or DFSG approve.
> "You can't claim you're open source because you limit competitors using your code for free" Pfft.
Correct. If you're trying to get the marketing advantage and let other people give you free work, then you get to play fair and other people also benefit. That's what those words mean.
This free work everyone talks about is not free. They need to maintain it, they need to review it, they need to baby-step new contributors, etc. That costs money.
Not to mention, most aren't doing it to get free work. They're giving stuff away and folk are crying because they can't use someone else's work as free work.
Look at any major open source product and you'll see nearly all the commits are done by paid employees. Open source is built on free work is a lie. Open Source is largely paid for.
It's a 2-way street on value and time.
No, the community does it to get to use the software for free. That's enough. The right to make a competing company that just uses the software is not in the minds of most community members.
I'm convinced the other people who care about this freedom don't contribute to anything.
It's opt-in. No one forces a project to pick open source. They don't get to decide what's enough.
You clearly want open source to mean something other that what it by default means. A better place to put your efforts would be like folks over at fair.io, perhaps. It's not faring well IMO, but it's an honest take in the "no competing company" direction.
Talk to some lawyers. I'm sure you could bring the first lawsuit to try to get a judge to rule that everyone should agree with you on what "open source" means.
Good luck with that.