Comment by DANmode
2 years ago
> I don't see why "open source" must imply that anyone should be allowed to fork the repo
Apart from 20+ years of historical use in that way?
2 years ago
> I don't see why "open source" must imply that anyone should be allowed to fork the repo
Apart from 20+ years of historical use in that way?
You're completely misrepresenting my quote by cutting off the "and sell it" at the end, that's incredibly disingenuous.
MIT license restrict commercialization. Is the MIT license not open source then?
The MIT License does not restrict commercialization aside from requiring attribution. In fact, the text of the license includes the phrase "without restriction":
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
Open source software licenses have always allowed the licensed software to be resold by others. The very first criterion in the Open Source Definition is:
> 1. Free Redistribution
> The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
https://opensource.org/osd/
The "Any Source Available License 1.0" is not an open source software license because it restricts commercial use, but it happens to be correctly named because it is a source-available software license. Source-available software (such as Anytype) is still preferable to proprietary software with little to no source code published (such as Notion), since it is easier to audit software when the source code is available.
Ok I stand corrected on the MIT license, thanks for the explanation. I wonder why so many on HN criticize it then, seems reasonable to me.