this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
10 points (77.8% liked)
Opensource
2458 readers
39 users here now
A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!
⠀
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Again, these puritan open source defenders. "It's not open source if $bibleQuote". "Just call it source available". And all the other arguments.
From what I gather, the licence is still in the spirit of open source, just not to the letter. It doesn't want large businesses taking the code , making a competitor and nor contributing back.
These open source defenders do not care about developers and their lives. They just want the code be released in a manner that respects their bible, to the letter.
Anti Commercial-AI license
You literally attach a license to every comment you post. The rules which make that license effective are the same rules which make Free Software and open-source licenses effective, too. Show some solidarity; you're part of the community too, and you should feel comfortable making the same demands as the rest of us. When you say that "open source defenders" are distinct from "developers" you are contributing to a schism for the sake of aggrandizing employment and exploitation.
Their license is not a free software/content license, as it has a non-commercial clause.
I'm frustrated with non-commercial as a clause because it feels difficult to define. Even though selling the content is pretty clear cut, there are so many ways to reuse content that indirectly make money, in a society where everything is business. If I use this content on my resume and then that gets me a job, was it a commercial usecase?