5 ms·

That's great, but not "open source". The "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International" license isn't.

• btown 2y ago
  [flagged]
• tamnv 2y ago
  I wasn't aware of that. Is there an open-source license available for non-commercial use?
  • mfontani 2y ago
    No, kinda by (OSD) definition. See point number 6 here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. So if you wish to restrict the use of the Software "in a business" (or in other endeavours), it won't be considered "open source". The CC licenses aren't great for software, either, IMO. They're great for things like assets, basically... and that's about it. That said, there's plenty "code available" licenses you may use. You just can't then call them "open source" since they're not. Another way to put it: say I provide a patch to that software for you. I release it under the same terms as you provided. If you use it, well... you can't use it in your commercial product... as the license forbids it? ;-)
    • tamnv 2y ago
      Thanks for correcting me. I will change the license.
  • alanfranz 2y ago
    If you want to prevent sb else to offer it as an hosted service without releasing source code, AGPL could work. But sb could still sell your app by just distributing its source code along.
    • tamnv 2y ago
      Got it. Thanks