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 #3Dprinting may be unintentionally damaging the general understanding of #OpenSource.
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)
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?