Be advised that at least the backend is not open source but rather just source available. It's under a proprietary license.
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
37 points (78.5% liked)
Open Source
30206 readers
240 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
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
Thank you!
@foosel let's add them to the list: https://github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-Source-Confusion-Cases
Just went to do this and there's already a request open to get it added: https://github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-Source-Confusion-Cases/issues/41
The license on server forbids you to do anything about it, but it is "hey look, open source!". i.e. You can see, develop and modify the code on your own but under the license you can't do anything about it. That's really saying you are allowed to develop something you legally cannot own unless you paid the subscription, on top of that they can slap the "open source" label on it.
Edit: alright, I stand corrected.
FOSS and OSS mean the same thing. Apparently this stems from MBAs failing to understand the difference between free speech and free beer, and automatically assuming the later.
So this is "source available", and the label "open source" is bogus.
@7heo taking the term "open source" literally as just open for reading (not open for modification, distribution etc..) that's only what big monopolistic corporations want you to believe. They've been attempting to redefine the term for many years. Before they started this campaign it was pretty clear to everyone that open source means one of the OSI licenses. Think about it, if it was only about readability, then all javascript would be technically open source. The mixup is artificial.
The term "open source" is well defined by OSS. It seems like the client itself is open source, but the server is under a proprietary license. So yeah, this aint it.
Technically, it's "source available" if that's what they mean/say. However, afaiu the
This EE License applies only to the part of this Software that is not distributed as part of AFFiNE Community Edition (CE). Any part of this Software distributed as part of AFFiNE CE or is served client-side [...], is copyrighted under the MPL2.0 license.
part, it only applies to enterprise edition, so that's quite a common way of doing things. Kinda like what gitlab does with their ce and we versions.
Edit: well, and you are enterprise as soon as you use it in production. So, yeah, source available.
Yo this looks awesome!
I got the self-hosted docker container running within 2 minutes and started importing all my Obsidian Markdown Documents. The automatic Collections based on tags is awesome
This looks legit pretty promising! I've been gradually working on moving off of Notion for the last year, and somehow this one slipped past my notice.
Can u self host?