fosstodon.org is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Fosstodon is an invite only Mastodon instance that is open to those who are interested in technology; particularly free & open source software. If you wish to join, contact us for an invite.

Administered by:

Server stats:

11K
active users

Kyle Davis

First, I love this project and want to build it.

However, I'm going to go 'Old Man Yells at Cloud' on calling it open source and how the maker projects and may be unintentionally damaging the general understanding of .

a) the model is CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. That is unambiguously not open source: NC means it restricts fields of endeavour.

b) It 'remixes' code without a license from pastebin.

(1/3 - edited to show YouTube preview)

youtu.be/2xAk-wegS9o

c) Various bits of code are pulled from comments on models, which don't seem to have a license. (No license != public domain for points b and c)

d) Across the 'remixes' and postings on multiple project pages nothing has been contributed back to the original project.

Why does all this make me grumpy? It paints a malformed picture of open source that people generalize out. "Why _can't_ I copy/paste from this code without a license?"

(2/3)

It also normalizes stretching the meaning of open source. So, when I try to explain that various source available licenses are not open source, I'm fighting against people with major audiences saying otherwise.

(3/3)

@linux_mclinuxface This sounds like it goes back to the original debate about the term Open Source: is it specifically about being able to see the source code, or the open license to be able to do whatever with it? We've gotten so used to the second meaning that we tend to forget how novel the first one was, and that it still offers value, but is definitely not the same!

@AmeliasBrain I dunno. This felt very settled until around 6-7 years ago when a bunch of companies started switching licenses tried to zip up their user base.

Since then there has been a drumbeat of people trying to dilute the term.

(I would also say the ‘NC’ Creative Commons licenses were not innocent in this confusion)

@linux_mclinuxface I kinda think the awkwardness of the phrase "source available" doesn't help this situation. Even if it weren't awkward, it's also unclear. Arguably things like the original unixes were often source distributions, but restricted copying, for example.

We probably only really have the various BSDs because that arrangement meant the source didn't die with its original owners' tapes/disks/etc.

So I dunno. I think this is an area where there's just a lack of good terminology.

@megmac would you prefer fauxpen source?

@linux_mclinuxface It is very frustrating at the moment, it is all so mixed! And what is "fun" is that NC is not even protecting their work as it cannot be applied on a functional object. There is a good page to share when people get painful : oshwa.org/sharing-best-practic

Also, today, I have yet to see a file sharing website having the only open source licence capable of supporting 3D printed parts (CERN OHL v2). We have been several to request this licence at printables without success.

www.oshwa.org · Best Practices for Open Source Hardware 1.0Translations: Español, 中文, Français, Deutsch As described in the Open Source Hardware definition and statement principles, the essence of open-source hardware (OSHW) is sharing the design files for…

@bear_lab yeah, I agree. The liscense selection on modeling sharing websites is all wrong. It’s hardware. The CERN licenses and/or Solderpad belong on these lists.

In this case it’s _both_ software (Arduino) and functional objects.

@linux_mclinuxface Yeah you can't use dual licensing either I think...

@bear_lab I just submitted a support request at thingiverse. Under the new regimen, there is a fighting chance the cern OHL licenses will be added @linux_mclinuxface

@oliof @linux_mclinuxface Thank you very much. Let me know how it goes and I will add my voice if it fails.

@bear_lab had a quick chat with nallath, who was optimistic about it. We will see. @linux_mclinuxface

@linux_mclinuxface a) I don't care and I don't think you should care either. The OSI, which is an amalgamation of mostly cloud infrastructure providers, shouldn't get to define "open source". If it says noncommercial isn't open source, we don't have to listen. Why should it be defined in a way that serves the interests of commercial entities?

Same with the SSPL.