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 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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 :)

[–] chebra@mstdn.io 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

@foremanguy92_ @AnyOldName3 yes, unfortunately, you are wrong. The term "open source" also contains a clause about not restricting the use. Think "open cage", not just "open book".

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 points 1 month ago (1 children)

@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.uk 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] chebra@mstdn.io 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

@HumanPenguin Well I'm all ears, eager to learn the history, yet still waiting for the link... do you have any?

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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,

[–] chebra@mstdn.io 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

@HumanPenguin Or maybe you are just talking out of your ass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open/_source

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Maybe but I'm assuming you are far to young to have worked on and pre x86 arch. So assuming is only making you the arse.

I worked on many software products calling them self open source pre stallmans popularity.

It literally was the only way software commercial could have a large marketing base in the early days. Pre home PC etc.

[–] chebra@mstdn.io 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

@HumanPenguin Whatever man, are you even reading yourself?

> I’m assuming ...
> assuming is only making you the arse.

If you have no source, then please stop bothering.

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago

Sure when you find any source indication open source did not exist as a term,

Untill then stop being an arsehole and consider the fact old gits remember shit.