undefined | Better HN

0 pointsphreeza12y ago0 comments

I think you could achieve this best by dropping the NC clause and enforcing the approval process by licensing the OpenDesk brandname? I think that is how Arduino works, for example. As it stands this is really not open source because you are trying to regulate how the actual information gets used, which in my opinion stifles innovation.

0 comments

thruflo12y ago

That's an interesting suggestion and an interesting distinction -- thank you.

I agree that any and all license restrictions stifle innovation / building on each other's work. I also think it would be nice to limit the application of "open source" so that in a perfect world, you don't get the kudos if you don't encourage the innovation.

On the other hand, the literal meaning of open source is pretty clear: that the source code is available for you to view, tinker with and re-compile. Which with OpenDesk is, I hope, the case -- despite the NC license restriction.

Aside: `license the brand` vs `license the design` reminds me a touch of the What colour are your bits article re-posted yesterday http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 A name is just a tag that can easily be snapped off...

caboteria12y ago

According to the Open Source Definition[0] "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." Clause 6 requires that to be Open Source "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."

[0] http://opensource.org/docs/osd

thruflo12y ago

Fair enough -- thanks for the reference. On this point their rationale[1] is:

> to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.

Unambiguously opposed to a NC license being defined as open source.

[1] http://opensource.org/osd-annotated

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

thruflo12y ago

That's an interesting suggestion and an interesting distinction -- thank you.

caboteria12y ago

[0] http://opensource.org/docs/osd

thruflo12y ago

Fair enough -- thanks for the reference. On this point their rationale[1] is:

> to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.

Unambiguously opposed to a NC license being defined as open source.

[1] http://opensource.org/osd-annotated

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse