> FireDucks is not a open source library at this moment.
You can get it installed freely using pip and use under BSD-3 license and of course can look into the python part of the source code.
I don't understand what it means. It looks like a contradiction. Does it have a BSD-3 licence or not?
> While the wheel packages are available at https://pypi.org/project/fireducks/#files, and while they do contain Python files, most of the magic happens inside a (BSD-3-licensed) shared object library, for which source code is not provided.
They provide BSD-3-licensed Python files but the interesting bit happens in the shared object library, which is only provided in binary form (but is also BSD-3-licensed it seems, so you can distribute it freely).
Wouldn't it be nice if GitHub was just for source code and you couldn't just slap up a README that's an add for some proprietary shitware with a vague promise of source some day in the glorious future?
> Wouldn't it be nice if GitHub was just for source code
GitHub always been a platform for "We love to host FOSS but we won't be 100% FOSS ourselves", so makes sense they allow that kind of usage for others too.
I think what you want, is something like Codeberg instead, which is explicitly for FOSS and 100% FOSS themselves.
I think the anger comes from the fact that we expect Github repositories to host the actual source code and not be a dead-end with a single README.md file.
> FireDucks is not a open source library at this moment. You can get it installed freely using pip and use under BSD-3 license and of course can look into the python part of the source code.
I don't understand what it means. It looks like a contradiction. Does it have a BSD-3 licence or not?
From the above link:
> While the wheel packages are available at https://pypi.org/project/fireducks/#files, and while they do contain Python files, most of the magic happens inside a (BSD-3-licensed) shared object library, for which source code is not provided.
They provide BSD-3-licensed Python files but the interesting bit happens in the shared object library, which is only provided in binary form (but is also BSD-3-licensed it seems, so you can distribute it freely).
Since it is under the BSD 3 licence, users would also be permitted to decompile and modify the shared object under the licence terms.
1 reply →
BSD license gives you the permission to use and to redistribute. In this case you may use and redistribute the binaries.
Edit: To use, redistribute, and modify, and distribute modified versions.
"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met..."
https://opensource.org/license/bsd-3-clause
Such a crazy distortion of the meaning of the license.
Imagine being like "the project is GPL - just the compiled machine code".
1 reply →
Wouldn't it be nice if GitHub was just for source code and you couldn't just slap up a README that's an add for some proprietary shitware with a vague promise of source some day in the glorious future?
> Wouldn't it be nice if GitHub was just for source code
GitHub always been a platform for "We love to host FOSS but we won't be 100% FOSS ourselves", so makes sense they allow that kind of usage for others too.
I think what you want, is something like Codeberg instead, which is explicitly for FOSS and 100% FOSS themselves.
You'd slap that in a comment then?
>proprietary shitware
Is this shitware? It seems to be very high quality code
I think the anger comes from the fact that we expect Github repositories to host the actual source code and not be a dead-end with a single README.md file.
How can you tell?
7 replies →