Open Source

[VehementHam]

It would mean a lot to a small set of users if you open-sourced this project. Currently this project is not open source, and it does not provide full freedom to the user.

https://www.oshwa.org/2014/05/21/cc-oshw/

[sdjkolyfuiwqa]

flumpert rumpert

[natereprogle]

You linked to the Open Source Hardware Association, this is not hardware. The OSI is the organization that handles open source software, but their definition is also just their general definition and no one is required to use it to be considered open source. This project is “open source” in the definition that the source is openly available for anyone to use, modify, and redistribute. And, the license the author decided to use here is pretty much freely able to be used everywhere except commercially. In fact, commercial use is the only thing that license really restricts. So, unless you planned on making money off of this guys work, you’re fine. Also, the readme says you can still take donations if you wanted. It provides 100% freedom to the user, but provides 0% freedom to business and corporations attempting to steal this for monetary gain. I don’t know any “small set of users” that would need a less restrictive license, unless they aren’t actually users and are employees of some shady business.

[VehementHam]

Open Source Hardware Association

You are right, I did link the wrong source. But I was using the term "open source," as the majority of the open source community would. In this context means that there are no restrictions on who can use the program, and for what purpose. It can be used by anyone and distributed by anyone. There are a few excetpions to this such as copyleft and attribution. But restricting users from using the program comercially, is not exceptable by open source stardards.

100% freedom to the user

This is not true. The user does not have the ability to use this comercially. I am not saying that I want to use it comercially, but I do not appreciate a program telling me what I can and cannot do with it.

The point of the open source movement is for software is free (as in "freedom"), and without restrictions. We beleive that these restrictions are harmful and disrespectful to the user and their freedom. A developer that cares about its users, should not place restrictions on said users.

corporations attempting to steal this for monetary gain

There is a tremendous amount of open source projects. This does not happen regularly, and would most definately never happen to this project. A statement like this is ignorant, and neglects the real world of open source projects.

If the developer, dispite the small chance, does not want a corperation forking this project, and making it proprietary, then they can use the GPL. A large percentage of open source projects use it, and it has worked out for those projects.

I feel uncomfortable using a program that restricts my freedom and is not open source. This all may sound crazy, but it is what the open source community beleives and values. It would be very simple to put this project under the GPL, and gain the trust and respect of the ever-growing community of open source advocates.

[natereprogle]

This is not true. The user does not have the ability to use this comercially.

I think you and I have differing definitions of freedom. A user is not restricted in any way to use this software. The NC licenses from CC do not restrict based on the identity of the user, only on the use. This means that the vast majority of developers seeing this project will have no issues with the licensing. Any user, whether in a commercial environment or at home, can use this but only for their own use, it cannot be used for monetary gain by a corporation or business. If a company needs something like this for monetary value, they'd better fork over some cash and get a temporary license from the developer. My reasoning is below ⬇️

If the developer, dispite the small chance, does not want a corperation forking this project, and making it proprietary, then they can use the GPL.

I don't know about you, but a corporation stealing my hard work and making bank off of it would suck. I'm releasing my code out of the goodness of my heart, making it freely available, and then some multi-billion dollar international conglomerate comes in and steals it, then makes millions of dollars off of it, and I see none of it. They just took my hard work, deployed in their environment without lifting a finger to get it, and didn't pay me a dime in return. If I was an employer or contractor with them then this would be illegal. But because I'm just some guy that open-sourced my work, it's perfectly fine and I have no legal recourse. To be clear, I license all my work under MPL 2.0 because it isn't heavily used and I want to freely share it. MPL 2.0 allows commercial use. However, if I started noticing my software was being used by larger corporations and I wasn't getting anything from their use, I'd 100% be retroactively changing the licensing model to ensure I'm getting my cut because, while I don't care if a little ma-and-pop shop uses it for their small business, when mega corporations start stepping in I will get my fair share. They already screw over so many people and employees alike, I'm not letting them do that to me.

This is exactly what is happening with core-js. The man's life was literally ruined because his hard work, which powers basically every website you use, was taken and abused by mega corporations, and no one supported his work even though he single-handedly wrote code that powers the majority of sites you use. When he asked for donations, he got death threats. He said in his post that future versions will likely only be commercially available due to this.

I feel uncomfortable using a program that restricts my freedom and is not open source.

You can feel "uncomfortable" about a program that "restricts your freedom" all you want. The fact of the matter is your freedom isn't restricted, and I'd wager to say about 80% of all use of this product wouldn't be restricted either. It's only corporations that would be restricted here. They have money, they can build their own version of this or purchase it. If the open source’s community requires me to “believe” that it has to be an all or nothing decision, then count me out. I don’t want to be associated with a people of people that act like they’re better than everyone because of their licensing choices for the software they write.

People can ride their high horse about "Open Source must mean xyz" but it doesn't matter. It isn't hurting you or literally any other person on this entire planet. If you want to be nuanced, then you can say "Source Available" but "Open Source" for 99.9% of people is fine as well.

The only people who would be complaining about this not “truly being open source” are those who act “higher than thou”, or those wanting to use it commercially and legally can’t due to the licensing. Anyone else couldn’t care less.

[VehementHam]

You completely missed my main point about the GPL. Choosing the GPL would allow more freedom to the user, while still ensuring that a large company does not take over the project. I am under the impression that you do not know what the GPL is, so I will explain it to you. The GPL is a solution for creating open source projects in the copyright-restrictive distopia that we are living in.

The GPL is like any other open source license except it is "copyleft," meaning that any forks of the project must also be under the GPL, making them open source. That means that you can combine any changes a company makes with your own project, keeping your project up to par with all changes and improvements made by anyone anywhere.

Because of this, the GPL makes it impossible for a company to take over, or as you put it, "steal" your project. In addition to this, it also allows for the project to be used commercially.

The GPL is a better and more sensible alternative to the CC NC. There is a reason why the large majority of open source projects use it instead.

As for the "higher than thou" remark, I can confidently say that it is untrue; at least or me. I simply feel uncomfortable using a non-open source project, that is under a restrictive license, when it might as well be under the GPL.

[natereprogle]

I love the ChatGPT answer when I literally said I use the MPL 2.0 license. They are practically the same license but with one exception: the GPL requires the GPL licensed code to be open sourced along with the entire project with which the GPL code is contained in, while the MPL license only requires the MPL licensed files to be available, which I’d argue is more open than GPL because it allows for commercial use of the code without requiring the entire project that uses my code to also be MPL or even open sourced. In fact, I’d even argue that the MIT license is even more open that either of the other two because it allows more freedom in how code is released. It’s not “freedom” if you’re being held captive by the very license that you claim keeps you free. With MPL and MIT, I’m free to combine software of other types of licenses, especially if that software’s license doesn’t allow release of the source code even though it does allow for commercial use. Forcing others to be open source just because you want to be open source isn’t cool imo. That’s just forcing your beliefs onto another individual or business. The GPL is a great license, but not perfect and is honestly more restrictive in how code is used and distributed. I am all for OSS and FOSS, but if a business or individual wants to make software available for the public they should get the choice of whether or not to open source it and what license to use, not be forced by someone else to do what they want because they think they know what’s best.

If you really truly care about ensuring your code is as public and open source as possible, don’t even put a license on it and release it into the public domain. Use The Unlicense if you’re really daring. That way anyone can do literally anything they want with it, anything at all. 0 restrictions, 0 warranty, 0 problems.

I’m unsubscribing from this thread because I’m done with it, please take your beliefs about OSS somewhere else. I’m sure if the author of this software actually cared he would’ve put the proper license on it to begin with.

[VehementHam]

First of all, I would like to say that ALL of my projects are under the Unlicense. I agree that it is the most open license. But I am not talking about you making your code the most open it can be. This is about making your code as open as it can be, while ensuring that a company does not steal it. And while, you bring up a good points about how you beleive the GPL is less open than the CC-NC, their are surely more open alternatives.

First of all, all CC licenses are not even intended for software. Therefor I highly recommend that you look into other licenses and ask the open source community what a good alternative should be, because they will know of a better one.

If you use the MPL license on all your other projects why don't you use it on this one?

Also, I did not use ChatGPT. Many people acuse me of using it, and it only makes them look stupid. I clearly make grammar and spelling mistakes, and you can check my writing with an LLM detector.

[VehementHam]

I would like to say that ALL of my projects are under the Unlicense

https://git.disroot.org/oink