TIL: our hardware is not "Open source hardware" (as defined by the OSHWA)...
> 8. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the work (including manufactured hardware) in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it must not restrict the hardware from being used in a business, or from being used in nuclear research.

We do not allow the use in state terrorism and other questionable stuff...

in general, also on other sites on that topic, they also keep pounding on the MUST be usable for ANY use case and MUST be commercially usable!

Leaves a weird taste tbh

And then awful statements like this:
> Using a Non Commercial license in combination with the term “Open Source” is like saying “I cook vegan food using only pork”.

grrr... not allowing commercial use doesn't limit the open sourceness of the stuff!
It limits the use, yeah, but if commercial use is what you're so concerned about, I would question your fundamental reasoning why you want stuff to be open source in the first place!

@flyfly it does because "open source" has a specific definition (by the OSI) which does not include non-commercial licenses. it's source available, but not open source

@noisytoot so I should say "it's source is open"? at that point we're just beating around semantics... different ways of describing that the sources are out in the open, for everyONE to take and use (just not for everyCOMPANY...)

on that note: screw the system!
why should I comply with a crapitalism and profit brained idea?

@flyfly I'd just say "it's source-available". calling it open source just creates unnecessary confusion by using a different meaning from the widely accepted definition of the term "open source"

@noisytoot tbh, that will confuse more beings than calling it open source/sources are open (like... who would get confused by that? apart from the companies I don't want to use my stuff anyways? (and my projects do allow commercial use, under certain conditions(but ofc no mega corp)))
In my 1 1/2 decades in open source software, I've never seen commercial use as an essential thing to it, just as a byproduct, and I know enough beings around who do the same.

@flyfly I don't think so. It's the definition that basically every distro uses too and it's mostly (there are some exceptions like the Sybase Open Watcom license and the NASA Open Source Agreement that are open source but not free software) equivalent to the FSF's free software definition, and the DFSG, which the OSI's definition is based on.

@noisytoot yeah, ignore the organizations for a moment...
when you ask beings (who are not like the total license nerd or in a position where that commercial topic would matter) what open source means, in general and to them... do you think anyone would really come up right ahead with "it must be able to commercialize"?

@noisytoot oh also, GPL is an open source license (according to wikipedia) and that limits the commercial use too. In different ways but it still limits it.

@flyfly GPL doesn't limit commercial use (but some companies like to misleadingly claim that it does to scare people into paying them for commercial licenses). it just specifies that if you sell binaries (which is allowed), you must also provide source code at no extra cost beyond the cost of the distribution medium (or a written offer to do so that's valid for 3 years)

@noisytoot yeah, ofc, my point is, it adds conditions to commercial use!
Similar to "you can use it commercially if you comply with the rules of <other license>"

@flyfly @noisytoot The difference is that it adds conditions to commercial use, it doesn't stop them from using it period. In your own example, you can't use it for nuclear research or for a business. In GPL's terms, they can use it as long as they provide the instructions to build it (even if it's paywalled)

@flyfly beings who know what open source is I think would know that it doesn't include licenses that forbid commercial use, but maybe that's a recursive definition (if they know what it is then they know what it is)

@flyfly @noisytoot

who would get confused by that? apart from the companies I don’t want to use my stuff anyways?

Sorry to be this blunt, but every single person who has ever done their most basic homework on software licensing.

“Open Source” and “Free Software” have very specific definitions that all go back to the four freedoms that Stallman defined all the way back in 1985.

And if you use those terms without meeting the requirements you are effectively committing labeling fraud by using what might legally not be trademark, but de facto very much is.

And to be very clear: You are completely at liberty to use non-free licenses, even Stallman himself does this for many of his writing, in those cases often CC-BY-ND (which is not a free license by any of the aforementioned definitions); even the original GNU Free Documentation License is not acknowledged by Debian as a free license because it allows for non-modifiable sections.

Now the thing that people should be aware of is that the extremely permissive licenses that OSI pushes are very much exploitative because they allow companies to take your code, turn it non-free and sell it, which is why I don’t see a point in them (if I care that little, I might as well go for public domain); strong copyleft licenses like the GPL (or better: AGPL) are however specifically designed to prevent that and will force companies to give back their modifications to ensure that you and everyone else can benefit of it to. (I’m not ashamed of subscribing to the conspiracy theory that most of the Stallman hate is pushed by big companies that don’t want you to hear his very left wing takes on licensing and other topics.)