https://github.com/VladimirKalachikhin/e
https://github.com/VladimirKalachikhin/e-inkDashboardModernSK
Dashboard for modern powerful JavaScript-enabled e-ink devices with some SignalK instruments.
Available in Appstore. Testing is required. Welcome suggestions and criticism.
8 Replies
Sorry to see that you didn't use an open source license. That prevents any code reuse of your work.
The license prohibits commercial use. For commercial use, commercial licensing is possible.
Yes, hence no open source.
I believe that businesses do not have the right to use open software for free.
I don't know what "open software" is. It can mean anything. However, open source software is a well-defined concept and the license you have selected for your projects unfortunately does not fall within that scope.
Now, everyone is of course entitled to license their own code as they want, and there's nothing wrong in writing non-open-source software or seeking to profit from it like you do. Most professional software engineers do that for living. However, in the context of an open source community, using compatible open source licenses would greatly benefit the community as a whole by making code reuse and sharing possible, and encouraging other people to participate in improving your code.
What I would appreciate, however, is having correct license information in packaging metadata. The
package.json information in your projects suggests a different, far less restricting license that what is stated in the actual repository. I'm sure that is a simple copy-paste error, but maybe you could fix that nevertheless?I don't quite understand you. In the
package.json is specified CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. The repository contains the CC-BY-SA-4.0 licence text with specifying the licensee. What's wrong here?The license in your repo is Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International which is CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, while in
package.json you specify, like you said, CC-BY-SA-4.0. That is Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. The latter roughly corresponds to copyleft software licenses (although is incompatible with them) while the former is a decidedly non-open-source one.You right. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was very distracted.
About a " decidedly non-open-source ": yes, I am against "free distribution".
In addition, the CC BY-NC-SA does not prohibit the use and modification of the code, at least in Russian legislation.
In addition, the CC BY-NC-SA does not prohibit the use and modification of the code, at least in Russian legislation.