Mlem is licensed under the Commons Clause, which prohibits commercial use, even though the project advertises itself as "open source".
The maintainers have refused to accept PRs that change the wording to "source-available", edited comments and locked threads about the topic:
4 Comments
shinjiikarus@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 3y
Genuine questions: what are your fears about these definitions? Are the mlem developers using community contributions unfairly and gaining money off of other people‘s work under that license? Is the current definition worse than Apollo + Reddit (both proprietary as far as I know) for the consumer?
afoutopatisa@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3y
I don't have a problem with this, but would be interested to hear why this choice was made. Going strictly by Stallmanism / FOSS purists, CC is considered "non-free" (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#comclause).
Zeth0s@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3y
It anyway doesn't claim license is not "open source", just not free. That is very different. Source is open, cannot be freely utilized
afoutopatisa@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 3y
That is correct. I'm OK with them using "open source" as it's valid.
KintsugiUwU@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 3y