• Ardens
    -2•6 days ago

    Maybe, but not necessarily. You see, there could be plenty of reasons to protect ones code…

    • foremanguy
      7•6 days ago

      I don’t know what could be the reason for a non-profit to not open-source the code of a publicly available tool/product, except to hide or keep their property

      • Ardens
        0•6 days ago

        Is that not a good reason, if you are trying to help people, and competitors likely would damage that mission? There’s a thousand possible reasons, and I really wonder why you can’t imagine any of them…

        • foremanguy
          5•6 days 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
            3•6 days 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
              2•6 days 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 :)

              • chebra
                3•6 days ago

                @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.ukEnglish
                  2•5 days 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
                    1•5 days 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?