• foremanguy@lemmy.ml
    61·
    1 day ago

    Because if you care about user you should be at least transparent to them, in your example you could make your codebase open-source with a license restricting it for commercial uses

    • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
      3·
      1 day ago

      You can’t. Blocking commercial use stops a licence being open source. If you don’t want commercial competition, then you need copyleft, so anyone using your code has to share their modifications with whoever they give binaries to. If they end up using your code to make a better product, then it’ll have to be open source, too, and you can incorporate the improvements back into your version.

      • foremanguy@lemmy.ml
        2·
        1 day ago

        Maybe I’m wrong but they are many type of “open-source” licenses, sure they do not respect the GNU Open Source but they are pretty reasonable and I think that it exists license that do not allow you to use it for commercial uses

        EDIT : my bad, I’ve seen that making the commercial uses forbidden is no more open source license but CC-NC so you’re right :)

          • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukEnglish
            2·
            10 hours ago

            Only some definitions of open source state that. The concept has existed long before the free software foundation.

            While personally agree with the FSF. To say it is an exclusive definition of open source is just outright false.

            • chebra@mstdn.io
              1·
              10 hours ago

              @HumanPenguin Well obviously we can’t apply definitions of the likes of Meta or Google, who are trying to bend it towards their business goals, and also of some random internet bloggers. So apart from those, can you link to any applicable definition of open source which doesn’t grant the freedom of use?

              • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukEnglish
                2·
                9 hours ago

                Unfortunately you fail to understand the history. Stall man FSF etc is a relatively new organisation started in the 80s.

                Open source was a term long before that. And it was created by early Unix commercial dostros in the 60s. There were magazines etc dedicated to it as a mess with to allow commercial software to spread to multiple platforms. Long before stallmans free as in beer attitude.

                So no the other licences have a place in history and are open source even if you and I may not support their ideals.

                This is why words like libre and free software were formed to include our expanded ideals.

                  • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukEnglish
                    2·
                    9 hours ago

                    Pre internet links are hard. I grew up using these versions of open source.

                    IBM SCO and sun formed Open source licences that were very literally you got to see and change the source.

                    In the 60 as CPU tech was a minefield of different ideas and architecture. It was the only way companies your keep up with mainframe PCs.

                    You will need to go to a library with microfiche and hubd down the 1960s open source magazine if you want more then actual old farts telling you the truth,