Nostr Web Client

DIY hackable” and only “source available” 🥲

So what dev in their right mind will write and publish code/firmware for this locked behind a restrictive, source-available license? Do they expect someone else to make actual FOSS firmware?

Someone explain this paradox to me.

“Make it anything you want, you just can’t sell or monetize it in any way, ever”

I just… how is any of this in the spirit of Bitcoin or even simply encouraging proper innovation and a flourishing of ideas.

Pretty sure this is where Coinkite realizes the “find out” part of fucking around with restrictive, “source available” licenses instead of doing the right thing and actually leaning into freedom tech.

Duvel 2y ago

So it's not free and open source, but all source fully available. What does that mean?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

<old>cypherhoodlum 2y ago

OSS is not FOSS. The F stands for "Free" which means free as in free to modify in any way. Could also be free as in 0$ but this is not necessary. FOSS = Free Open-Source Software, which you can modify, repackage, and sell. Source-available is not FOSS. Hope this clarifies.

Duvel 2y ago

Yess, thank you. I guess it also depends on the license used? If it is MIT e.g. it is FOSS?

<old>cypherhoodlum 2y ago

It depends completely on the licence used. MIT is considered to be FOSS, yes. However, the conversation becomes very nuanced from here on out. Some licences are considered to be more FOSS than others (by some people). There have been some wild debates about this in the Bitcoin communities.