opensource.org | HN Simulator

	mrob 34 days ago \| parent \| context \| on: GrapheneOS Overhauled Default Apps and Secure Clip... From the LICENSE file: https://gitlab.futo.org/keyboard/latinime/-/blob/master/LICE... >You may modify the software only for non-commercial purposes such as personal use for research, experiment, and testing for the benefit of public knowledge, personal study, private entertainment, hobby projects, amateur pursuits, or religious observance, all without any anticipated commercial application. Violates clause 3 (Derived Works) and clause 6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor) of the Open Source Definition [0]. >You may distribute the software or any part of its source code only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes. Violates clause 1 (Free Redistribution) and clause 6. >Notwithstanding the above, you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor in any copy you distribute to others. Violates clause 3. It is a "source available" license, not Open Source. [0] https://opensource.org/osd
	MaxBarraclough 41 days ago \| parent \| context \| on: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exempt... Sure, but of minimal practical impact. The Free and Open Source community has long discouraged releasing software into the public domain, as it has clear drawbacks compared to just using a permissive licence. The legal intricacies of the public domain vary between jurisdictions. Not all jurisdictions even allow copyrights to be surrendered in this way. [0] Licence-free isn't a concern. That isn't even close to Free and Open source software, it's the opposite: software that you aren't permitted to acquire, use, modify, or distribute. [1][2] [0] https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source [1] https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/ [2] https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-reposi...
	gowld 52 days ago \| parent \| context \| on: Google has stopped pushing Git tags for some Andro... How slow is "very slow" ? What is "certain source code"? Why is the OP being so coy about describing the problem? Here is the form: https://source.android.com/opensourcerequest This is interesting: > We might charge you a fee to cover the cost of processing. Your request must be sent according to whichever of the following rules applies: > Within three years of the date you received the product from Google that included the component or binary files that are the subject of your request. That "three years" is the minimum named in the GPLv2: https://opensource.org/license/gpl-2.0
	sheept 52 days ago \| parent \| context \| on: Civic Hygiene – avoid building technologies that c... That wouldn't be open source. OSI includes the clause "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor"[0] for its definition of open source. Famously, the JSON license[1] has a clause "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil," so the Free Software Foundation considers it nonfree.[2] [0]: https://opensource.org/osd [1]: https://www.json.org/license.html [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#JSON
	fluffybucktsnek 53 days ago \| parent \| context \| on: Mojo is now open source Technically, the criteria for open source is freedom to freely distribute and modify the source code, not to upstream changes. That's a different for thing. https://opensource.org/osd
	maffulli 60 days ago \| parent \| context \| on: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta... Except that Llama's license has restrictions that make it incompatible with the Open Source Definition. https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-license-is-still-not... I haven't checked the license of the new models, yet.
	maffulli 60 days ago \| parent \| context \| on: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta... If you read the license, you'd realize that Llama has restrictions incompatible with the definition of Open Source. https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-license-is-still-not...
	ButlerianJihad 62 days ago \| parent \| context \| on: Open-source interactive map for the Aug 12 total s... Neither of the two licenses are open-source licenses. In particular, the licenses are encumbered by the noncommercial restrictions. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ The outputs, rather than the source code, are said to be under this CC-BY-NC-SA licensing. https://opensource.org/osd I am not familiar with Polyform, but my cursory research indicates that this family of licenses is deliberately and consistently non-open-source. https://polyformproject.org/about It is profoundly deceptive to post this headlining as "Open-source" when it is deliberately not.
	ptx 62 days ago \| parent \| context \| on: Microsoft Word for Windows 1.1a, Native X64 Port More concretely, Microsoft's license [0] gives you at most one of the four essential freedoms: 0. Freedom to run for any purpose? No. 1. Freedom to modify the program? Maybe; Microsoft can revoke it without cause at any time. 2. Freedom to distribute unmodified? No. 3. Freedom to distribute modified? No. I'm using the free software definition [1] because it's simpler and clearer than the open source definition [2], which is usually considered mostly equivalent in practice, but as far as I can tell Microsoft's license satisfies zero of the latter's ten criteria, apart from perhaps non-discrimination and technology-neutrality. Most of the criteria of the open source definition have to do with distribution, which is not allowed by Microsoft's license. [0] https://computerhistory.org/blogs/microsoft-research-license... [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html [2] https://opensource.org/osd
	lenkite 79 days ago \| parent \| context \| on: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs > Open source developer: I'm going to open source my software so the world can use it for whatever they want! No, you are describing a SPECIFIC License called the The Unlicense: https://opensource.org/license/unlicense This is ONLY ONE such OSS license and does not apply to all OSS.
	wasabi991011 82 days ago \| parent \| context \| on: Annoying and alarming things about OpenCode Open source doesn't mean that it has to accept PRs. It has never meant that the code author's must accept community contributors. OpenCode has an MIT license, which allows you to copy/fork the code and modify it how you see fit. Please review the open source initiative's definition of open source: https://opensource.org/osd