The only upgrade they need is to change back to Open Source.
Discussion
It is open source. It’s not free though.
Love ya Doc, but please don't misuse verbiage / definitions...it's nefarious even though that is not your intention.
Open Source has a clear definition & that ethos is very important.
Here's a good read on licensing that Coldcard uses.
https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2018/09/10/tragedy-of-the-commons-clause/
FOSS > open source
This is a very old issue. I have no desire to go through it again. Being able to see what the code does and being able to profit off of it are, and have been, long separate issues.
FOSS = Open Source.
What you're referring to is called source viewable.
That's why on the Coinkite website there is no mention of Open Source anymore.
Interesting read. I think the biggest take home point is the Napster analogy: if you think changing a license is the solution to your problem, you’re failing to see the business opportunity/customer needs you’re not currently addressing. Prosecuting would be customers for music theft when what they really wanted was a digital music store was very highly stupid in retrospect.
The article linked to this from OSI: https://opensource.org/osd
IANAL, but I I don’t like OSI definitions. CC share and share alike & AGPL wouldn’t be open source by their definitions. I fail to see why placing software in to the public domain is insufficient. As a hobbyist programmer, having access to the source code is a huge deal to me. But I’m not starting a business venture and I understand that for society to improve, we need profit motives somewhere. Heck, last I looked, there was a ton of Next Step code in iOS.
Have you ever read the GNU manifesto?
I don’t think so. But I like stallman.
Building computing devices for short term needs is very different from building something that will improve humanity for generations. I’d argue non-FOSS licensing defines a project as short term (see windows 3.1 and windows 95, for example).