Duetto Project Continues For Web-Based C++ Support
Phoronix: Duetto Project Continues For Web-Based C++ Support
"open-source for non-commercial use" makes no sense. If it's open-source, it makes no distinction between uses.
Actually, the y say "open-source for open-source and non-commercial use, and a paid license for com*mer*cial use" but that doesn't mean they understand what they're saying.
There are licenses that give you the source under permissive terms but insist that you don't use it for any commercial activity. I believe the postfix license works like that. Whether that makes them open source or not (and who decides if something is open source) might be a discussion for another day.
It does not. If it did, it would not be allowed in Debian main for example.
Originally Posted by archibald
Postfix is under IBM Public License, which is considered open-source by DFSG, open-source definition (actually, derived from DFSG) and considered free software by FSF.
Or they could just mean they offer dual-licensing for proprietary projects that want to incorporate the code in their closed software. Which would be fine.
Claiming to be open-source while banning commercial use would be lying though.
It's entirely possible to licence code under CC-NC :P
Oops - sorry! I'm getting mixed up with something else, I'll do some digging and find out what...
Originally Posted by Mickabouille
"The company plans to release Duetto as open-source for non-commercial use while a commercial product will also be available in the coming months."
As others have pointed out this violates the open source definition and so is, by definition, not open source.
Do these people even know what open source is? Hint: it's not about being able to see the source code.
It is open source
You license your software as Grade AAA FSF-approved GPL3+++ complete with a little Stallman beard you have to glue onto your installation medium. This makes it so that your code, any code that links to your code, any code that sits in the same partition as your code, and any code that's written by anyone within three miles of your code has to be open source. Contrary to what some Stallmanistas believe, you can't effectively have commercial code that works that way ((almost) no one pays for what they can have for free). Thus, if you actually want to make money off of your software, you need a commercial license.
Originally Posted by Kristian Joensen
More seriously, this is open source. It's called GPL3. LiveCode works this way. PyQT (Python bindings for Qt) work this way. If I use PyQT any code using it (i.e. my actual program) must be open source (effectively non-commercial) as well. Otherwise, I need a commercial license. LiveCode is like this too - you can use it for all the personal or open source stuff you want courtesy of GPL3 but to distribute closed code you're going to need a commercial license.
Have you seen the demo of Unreal Engine running in the browser? Think of it this way. If Duetto is GPL3, Unreal Engine would have to be open sourced to run in the browser. Since that's not going to happen, they'd need a commercial license.
In conclusion: GPL3 isn't open source if you believe some of the arguments here. :-) But in reality it does have the same effect people here don't like: it tells you what you have to do with your code, and compels people to buy commercial licenses as a result. That's not bad, but let's recognize it for what it is and does. You can put restrictions on open source, because GPL3 does just that.