Comment by frankensteins 1 day ago Very detailed site. It said open source. where is the source? 2 comments frankensteins Reply gregsadetsky 1 day ago https://gitlab.com/globus-faber-public/eclipsefan ButlerianJihad 13 hours ago Neither of the two licenses are open-source licenses. In particular, the licenses are encumbered by the noncommercial restrictions.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/The outputs, rather than the source code, are said to be under this CC-BY-NC-SA licensing.https://opensource.org/osdI am not familiar with Polyform, but my cursory research indicates that this family of licenses is deliberately and consistently non-open-source.https://polyformproject.org/aboutIt is profoundly deceptive to post this headlining as "Open-source" when it is deliberately not.
gregsadetsky 1 day ago https://gitlab.com/globus-faber-public/eclipsefan ButlerianJihad 13 hours ago Neither of the two licenses are open-source licenses. In particular, the licenses are encumbered by the noncommercial restrictions.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/The outputs, rather than the source code, are said to be under this CC-BY-NC-SA licensing.https://opensource.org/osdI am not familiar with Polyform, but my cursory research indicates that this family of licenses is deliberately and consistently non-open-source.https://polyformproject.org/aboutIt is profoundly deceptive to post this headlining as "Open-source" when it is deliberately not.
ButlerianJihad 13 hours ago Neither of the two licenses are open-source licenses. In particular, the licenses are encumbered by the noncommercial restrictions.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/The outputs, rather than the source code, are said to be under this CC-BY-NC-SA licensing.https://opensource.org/osdI am not familiar with Polyform, but my cursory research indicates that this family of licenses is deliberately and consistently non-open-source.https://polyformproject.org/aboutIt is profoundly deceptive to post this headlining as "Open-source" when it is deliberately not.
https://gitlab.com/globus-faber-public/eclipsefan
Neither of the two licenses are open-source licenses. In particular, the licenses are encumbered by the noncommercial restrictions.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
The outputs, rather than the source code, are said to be under this CC-BY-NC-SA licensing.
https://opensource.org/osd
I am not familiar with Polyform, but my cursory research indicates that this family of licenses is deliberately and consistently non-open-source.
https://polyformproject.org/about
It is profoundly deceptive to post this headlining as "Open-source" when it is deliberately not.