308
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
308 points (99.0% liked)
Opensource
1252 readers
159 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You can redistribute modified code / binaries, just no commercial use.
I deleted my comment because I didn't really care to get into it with the weird custom license, but widely speaking if it's not distributable without condition, it's not open source.
EDIT- And it's okay that it's "only" source-available, it's a creator's choice how their works are used in the world. But I would argue this project license doesn't fit the spirit of this lemmy community.
MIT and GPL are not open source then, since they impose conditions. Open source by your definition would be some like WTFPL or Unlicense
Without explicit license? Without contacting the administrator for permission? This is what I mean by conditions. There's no need to be pedantic, if the software isn't available for commercial use how can it be open source? I cannot modify this and redistribute or package it without getting in touch with a project representative.