Open Source

31422 readers

21 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

What are your thoughts on this declaration of open philosophy? (Anytype opening repos) (github.com)

submitted 1 year ago by MonkCanatella to c/[email protected]

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Anytype is a PKMS, basically an advanced note taking app for building a second brain, managing tasks - managing life basically. They've recently "open sourced" but I'm not well versed enough to know the implications of what they've done here with their licensing. The only comment on this discussion shows disappointment and states that these licenses aren't open source some observers on Beehaw's FOSS community have shared the sentiment.

I'd love to have a discussion on this, looking between the lines and taking a critical look at who/what could be the beneficiary of these licenses.

top 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

This license grants individuals the freedom to review, modify, and utilize the code for personal, academic, scientific, research, and development purposes. However, for commercial use, consent from the Any Association is required.

Here, it isn't open source.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think that actually is a Free Software license, an open source license, or any kind of license for that matter, so much as a vague statement of intent

[–] MonkCanatella 1 points 1 year ago

https://github.com/anyproto/anytype-kotlin/blob/main/LICENSE.md here is their license they call the "Any Source Available License"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Thom Zane has pointed out that Anytype's license has a non-commercial clause. Well, I think it's only natural for an EVERYTHING app. Just the thought of it being sublicensed and changed in many ways to being sold as an "exclusive" app, it doesn't leave my mind. There's just a problem with differentiating if something is commercial or not sometimes.

Obviously, it doesn't fit the "open source" criteria, but it doesn't need to be - if you only want to change source code in few places and not offer it in exchange for something.