The CC-NC-SA-4.0 license isn't an Open Source Definition compliant license, since it discriminates against a field of use (commercial applications).
https://github.com/ClemensElflein/OpenMower/blob/main/LICENS... https://opensourcedefinition.org/
A reminder, open source means surrendering your monopoly over commercial exploitation:
https://drewdevault.com/2021/01/20/FOSS-is-to-surrender-your...
I don't care about my fake internet points, so have at it.
I'm really down for more variety with licenses like this one, but "open source" has become really unhelpful because it's used for:
- Open source for half the code, and the other half is proprietary
- Open source as long as you aren't a company
- Open source as long as you aren't a company competing with us
It's helpful to have a term for "free to do whatever you want with", but we don't really have on that doesn't get misused elsewhere right now.
> Feel free to use the design in your private/educational projects, but don't try to sell the design or products based on it without getting my consent first. The idea here is to share knowledge, not to enable others to simply sell my work. Thank you for understanding.
It's co-opting the term to call it open source.
This has been debated and settled. What people mean by open source or free software has a well agreed upon definition, and this isn't it.
Pure open source is also not a sustainable business model. You have to be open core or non-commercial, otherwise anyone and everyone can steal your lunch.
You're asking for the right to compete when they've given you every other single right there is. That's just not nice.
> Pure open source is also not a sustainable business model. You have to be open core or non-commercial, otherwise anyone and everyone can steal your lunch.
Maybe, but beside the point. The point is "don't call whatever you're doing open source if it isn't open source (per the generally accepted definition which you can read e.g. at https://opensourcedefinition.org/ )". No moral judgement here whether open source is morally superior or not, or whether open source is for suckers because the hyperscalers will co-opt it, or whatever. If you don't want to do open source, then don't, but don't go and call it open source.
I understand (tho not agree with you) up until this point. Don’t forget Wordpress was not originally Wordpress, you would say they “basically lifted b2/cafepress wholesale and gave nothing back”. Wordpress wouldn’t exist otherwise.
Funnily enough, the CC BY-SA-NC is not a fair source license, as it doesn’t include a provision for delayed open source publication. It is quite important, actually:
> DOSP ensures that if a Fair Source company goes out of business, or develops its products in an undesired direction, the community or another company can pick up and move forward. Will this be meaningful in practice? Again, time will tell. – https://fair.io/about/
But I do agree with the sentiment otherwise.
> Open source purism - especially for non-viral MIT and BSD licenses - is how Google and Microsoft and Amazon stole from the commons and turned it against us.
So why don't you advocate for Free Software which has always worked in the interest of the commons and provided the GPL as a way to combat this, instead of something else that isn't free and restricts the freedom of users more than a weak license?
So what? They make something better, so I take what they did and improve my product.
It's not my problem if someone from the Big Red East does something with my work as long as they share it too.
They also don't always do that. Look at the super popular BOOX e-ink notebooks. 100% in violation of the GPL, and has been for years, yet available to buy in common retailers such as Best Buy.
These are edging out popular devices, such as reMarkable, which are GPL compliant.
Just give it another name that doesn’t imply wrong assumption what can and can’t do with it.