this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
1046 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
81869 readers
4659 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That license looks like Creative Commons Non-Comercial, which is not an open source license.
This is an unpopular opinion, but using licenses to actively prevent commercial exploitation of voluntary communal labor is not a bad thing. I would even argue that allowing commercial exploitation of free, communally-maintained software is downright unethical. I don’t tolerate this pejorative “it’s not open source unless the rich and powerful can exploit it” bullshit.
If you dont want corpos to exploit it, you go with GPL. Then they are forced to share back.
I like AGPL in theory, but in practice it never works like that. They are protected by a smoke screen — you don’t know if they are using something, how they are using it, or what they’ve built on it — and even if something did leak about their usage they are protected by money — the vast majority of FOSS projects won’t have the resources to pursue any kind of legal enforcement or reasonable remedy. In practice, they will use and build on A/GPL software while contributing nothing back in blatant violation of the spirit and intent of the license, because who is going to find out or enforce it?
This is not a remotely unpopular opinion, sharing is awesome and corpos can suck it
Thank you, I see this so often and it always irks me.
"oh but you're limiting your reach with this license because companies won't want to us— boo fucking hoo, maybe not everything is about market-share and having a morbillion downloads.
I know, and yet the code is open source. Confusing.
No, the code is available, which is not the same as open source.
True, but I have no issue preventing commercial use. I view that as just as good if not better than traditional open source.
They do call it "open source" in the docs though.
That's called "source available". FUTO basically did the same thing with their stuff after the community rightfully got angry over their use of "open source" in their docs.