this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
933 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
81797 readers
4373 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Paywalled article. Here's the link to the app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.pocketpc.nearbyglasses
Edit: it's licensed under a license I never heard of. I'm curious, I don't understand why it was needed.
"Why draft new licenses? Until now, there has been no standardization of this kind of source code license, even though it has become increasingly common. This has resulted in confusing and overlapping licenses, which need to be analyzed one at a time. Lack of standardization has used up the time and resources of many in the software industry, as well as their lawyers. The objective of the PolyForm Project is standardization and reduction of costs for developers and users."
Seems like that exact XKCD about standards.
That license looks like Creative Commons Non-Comercial, which is not an open source license.
This is an unpopular opinion, but using licenses to actively prevent commercial exploitation of voluntary communal labor is not a bad thing. I would even argue that allowing commercial exploitation of free, communally-maintained software is downright unethical. I don’t tolerate this pejorative “it’s not open source unless the rich and powerful can exploit it” bullshit.
This is not a remotely unpopular opinion, sharing is awesome and corpos can suck it
Thank you, I see this so often and it always irks me.
"oh but you're limiting your reach with this license because companies won't want to us— boo fucking hoo, maybe not everything is about market-share and having a morbillion downloads.
I know, and yet the code is open source. Confusing.
No, the code is available, which is not the same as open source.
True, but I have no issue preventing commercial use. I view that as just as good if not better than traditional open source.
They do call it "open source" in the docs though.
That's called "source available". FUTO basically did the same thing with their stuff after the community rightfully got angry over their use of "open source" in their docs.
Say no more
Yeah I noticed it in the favicon too. Bad aftertaste.