I know, and yet the code is open source. Confusing.
That license looks like Creative Commons Non-Comercial, which is not an open source license.
northernlights@lemmy.today 5 hours ago
xvapx@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
No, the code is available, which is not the same as open source.
kuhli@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 hours ago
True, but I have no issue preventing commercial use. I view that as just as good if not better than traditional open source.
northernlights@lemmy.today 4 hours ago
They do call it “open source” in the docs though.
CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 hours ago
That’s called “source available”. FUTO basically did the same thing with their stuff after the community rightfully got angry over their use of “open source” in their docs.
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
This is an unpopular opinion, but using licenses to actively prevent commercial exploitation of voluntary communal labor is not a bad thing. I would even argue that allowing commercial exploitation of free, communally-maintained software is downright unethical. I don’t tolerate this pejorative “it’s not open source unless the rich and powerful can exploit it” bullshit.
moonshadow@slrpnk.net 2 hours ago
This is not a remotely unpopular opinion, sharing is awesome and corpos can suck it
LiveLM@lemmy.zip 1 hour ago
Thank you for writing down my own thoughts down. I see this so often and it always irks me.
"oh but you’re limiting your reach with this license because the companies won’t want to us— boo fucking hoo, maybe not everything is about market-share and having a morbillion downloads.