Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license
100 comments
·January 14, 2025abetusk
dang
Ok, I've attempted to bypass this issue by editing the title above. Submitted title was "Campsite is now open source".
If there's a better (more accurate and neutral) title, we can change it again.
sksrbWgbfK
Especially since the CC licenses are not recommended for software. Some call it "open-copyright" but I wouldn't use it for my applications.
ternaryoperator
Creative Commons isn't a bar to being open source, but the Non-Commercial part certainly is. Definitely not OSS.
mcmcmc
If the source code is publicly available, that is open source. What you mean is that it is not FOSS.
RobotToaster
It doesn't meet the open source definition point 6, since it discriminates against fields of endeavour https://opensource.org/osd (possibly point 5 as well, if a commercial entity counts as a "group of people")
47282847
A typical distinction is „source available“ or „public source“ vs „open source“ (no restrictions on use other than potentially keeping the openness intact and attribution).
chrysoprace
Any of the Creative Commons licenses are not recognised as open source licenses by the Open Source Initiative. [0]
that_guy_iain
Honestly, I find this whole OSI open-source definition annoying.
I'm pretty sure if this went to court a judge would say it's legally is open source because the source code is open. The fact, FOSS folk want to add a bunch of requirements to open source to make it harder for commercial software just stinks and that is really what it is. "You can't claim you're open source because you limit competitors using your code for free" Pfft.
actionfromafar
A judge would rule what "open source" means?
that_guy_iain
Yes. For example, if I advertised my software as open source and you sued for false advertising.
What do you think they don't rule on what things mean?
HumanOstrich
> I'm pretty sure if this went to court a judge would say it's legally is open source because the source code is open.
Talk to some lawyers. I'm sure you could bring the first lawsuit to try to get a judge to rule that everyone should agree with you on what "open source" means.
Good luck with that.
yjftsjthsd-h
> Honestly, I find this whole OSI open-source definition annoying.
Fair enough; I agree that having that one organization be the sole decider of Open Source is weird, so I'll happily accept as open source anything that the FSF or DFSG approve.
> "You can't claim you're open source because you limit competitors using your code for free" Pfft.
Correct. If you're trying to get the marketing advantage and let other people give you free work, then you get to play fair and other people also benefit. That's what those words mean.
that_guy_iain
> Correct. If you're trying to get the marketing advantage and let other people give you free work, then you get to play fair and other people also benefit. That's what those words mean.
This free work everyone talks about is not free. They need to maintain it, they need to review it, they need to baby-step new contributors, etc. That costs money.
Not to mention, most aren't doing it to get free work. They're giving stuff away and folk are crying because they can't use someone else's work as free work.
Look at any major open source product and you'll see nearly all the commits are done by paid employees. Open source is built on free work is a lie. Open Source is largely paid for.
jsiepkes
So Campsite got acqui-hired by Notion, tells their customers in a blog [1] something along the lines: "Thanks for all the fish, you've got 2 months to migrate to something else.".
They could have open sourced it in a way which would have allowed customers to atleast maintain their own install. But instead they release it under a license which says "non-commercial". So even if you were to export your own data you can't even self-host it.
It seems to me rug pulls such as these are bad for the entire industry. Why would you invest in these kind of products if there is real chance you'll get rug-pulled?
ensignavenger
Which is why strongly favoring products that are already real open source is the best business decision.
cwbuilds
Is there an 'open source Slack' type thing anywhere?
This is the closest I've found- https://mattermost.com/
ensignavenger
Zulip is another one, mentioned in a sibling comment. Matrix/Element is used by some companies. Nextcloud Chat exists, but I don't know much about it.
srid
If you are willing to explore a hybrid model of chat, there is Zulip: https://github.com/zulip/zulip
ok_dad
IRC probably. It doesn’t have every feature slack has though.
wraptile
Tale as old as time.
oneeyedpigeon
Every README should explain what the software actually is. "an open source version of the Campsite app" tells me absolute nothing — what IS the Campsite app? I would have submitted a PR with a fix, but the README also states they wouldn't accept such a PR anyway.
j5155
Campsite team, if you happen to be reading this: consider whether a more permissive license still meeting the FOSS definition, like GPL or AGPL, would better fit your needs. GPL means that anyone who modifies the source code, or integrates it into a larger work, has to release the modified version.
So this would ensure that everyone’s contributions continue to help the wider community. As a side effect, it would also prevent anyone from using your work without releasing the source code for their project or product, benefitting open source as a whole.
The choice is obviously ultimately yours. I personally didn’t realize the benefits of GPL until recently.
ensignavenger
I would prefer a more permissive license, such as MIT or Apache. Zulip is similar software, produced by a commercial company, and it is MIT licensed. The primary reason for this is that it isn't always clear with copyleft licenses where the boundary is between being a new separate work that uses the GPL software API, or when it is a derivative work of the GPL software. Also, as they are shutting down, there isn't really any reason for them to worry about some one else using the code in a permissive way.
(That being said, a copyleft license is miles ahead of the CC NC license for software!)
normie3000
> GPL means that anyone who modifies the source code, or integrates it into a larger work, has to release the modified version.
Is this accurate? I thought GPL only required distributing the source alongside binaries. If you're running GPL code as a web service, I don't think there's a requirement to release the source to your users.
awkwardpotato
In this case, you would want the Affero General Public License (AGPL) which specifically has a carve-out (in?) for web servers. Section 13, "Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License." [0]
[0] "[...] your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (...) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version"
dindresto
You may also want to consider the EUPL, which is OSI approved and despite the name not limited to the EU.
https://discourse.writefreesoftware.org/t/eupl-a-better-choi...
alexvitkov
How exactly do you use what looks like work-planning software non-commerically?
As for the license, it's their code and they can release it under whatever license they want, but they obviously shouldn't call it open source. Usually companies do this sort of thing to take advantage FOSS's reputation, but in this case it just looks like ignorance to me.
wink
Without having a deeper look into it - could be a replacement for any non-profit or bigger sports club or whatever org that uses Slack or Zulip or whatever now.
But that's about everything that comes to my mind...
RobotToaster
Even that's a minefield, a non-profit that sells things (like a sports club selling merch) is still potentially engaging in commercial activity.
wink
Good point. I suppose many people, like me, would not think about that.. but.. IANAL but at least in Germany I think there's often some correlation of "not profit-oriented" and "no commercial purpose" - I mean, every time you let someone pay for membership in your club, it can be seen as commercial, but mostly not.
Juliate
The Non-Commercial provision of the license is towards the app/code, not what the app is used for by end users.
You would not be able to install it and sell users right to use it, but you would be able to install it in-house for your own employees.
Brian_K_White
It says "for NonCommercial purposes only"
None of us gets to say that there are some commercial purposes that are ok and some that are not. You have to go by what it says. Or put it this way, some day someone what wants to use it against you, can and will go by what it says, and they will be right and win that argument.
This license is really pretty bad because while they try to allow educational use, educational use is itself usually also commercial use. If you use it in a class that you charge for, if a school that charges tuition uses it, if a youtuber even so much as uses it in a video that has either ads or a sponsor... those are all conmmercial use of the software.
Relying on the the rights-holder to just not persue it, ever, including next year when the rights-holder is some new owner, is just gambling.
Trying to carve out non-commercial is just misguided and ultimately self-defeating in my opinion. It is better than purely traditionally closed software, but ultimately really not by much.
The primary value is, if you happen to rely on this software and can't avoid it, then having any form of access to the source is better than being helpless to the usual black box. At least you can fully document mysteries that aren't fully documented, let alone maybe being able to debug or customize.
alexvitkov
If that's what the license says, fair enough, but that's not how I parsed it. This is not a software-specific license so it's not as clear as say the GPL, where there's very explicit language for source code, object code, compilation, execution, distribution, ...
Here's an excerpt from the license:
- 1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public
License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide,
royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable
license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed
Material to:
- A. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole
or in part, for NonCommercial purposes only; and
- B. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material for
NonCommercial purposes only.
I can "produce", "reproduce" and "share" the licensed material. I'm definitely not sharing it, so if "running the code" is allowed at all, it must fall under the "produce" or "reproduce" categories. The text is pretty clear that you can only "produce" and "reproduce" it for NonCommercial purposes as well, so what does that leave me with?
spencerflem
Yeah, I'm with you. CC is not well suited for something that can be run - unlike an image or music where its pretty clear what's happening when you use it.
senko
That's not what non-commercial means.
Juliate
Disagree.
That's exactly an n-th example of why this non-commercial clause is bogus since the very beginning of CC, and particularly unadapted for software code: no one is able to define clearly what commercial means, and what perimeter it applies to.
Selling the code? (you're a software editor) You could say it's covered/forbidden by the license.
Selling the service the code gives when it is running? (you're a PaaS) You could say too.
Selling anything unrelated to the code and the running app (say, oranges), but using the app to organise privately within a corporation? (you could be a shop owner installing the software for yourself and your team within your own building) 1/ the license says nothing about it, 2/ if it were covered and forbidden, how would it be even enforceable?
that_guy_iain
> Usually companies do this sort of thing to take advantage FOSS's reputation
I would say they do it because it conveys to the average person that they can get the source code and modify if they want to. This whole source-available, etc nonsense is just confusing for everyone.
yjftsjthsd-h
> because it conveys to the average person that they can get the source code and modify if they want to.
But not use it for its intended purpose, which is kinda important.
Spivak
You use it at work knowing that they'll never know and you'll never get sued.
gnabgib
Related:
Campsite Is Winding Down (2 points, 23 days ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42480734
Welcoming Campsite's Founders to the Notion Team (2 points, 24 days ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42475934
Realizing the dream of good workplace software (33 points, 3 months ago, 28 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41805009
Show HN: Campsite – Posts, calls, docs, and chat in one app (6 points, 5 months ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41182414
paxys
People complaining about the license are missing this - https://www.notion.com/blog/welcoming-campsites-founders-to-...
Notion bought the company. They have no reason to want the product to actually be open source, because they'd just be helping a potential competitor.
rswail
So the license makes it more like a tombstone of the source. It can't be used except for non-commerical use, whatever that means.
vergessenmir
Hah, more license confusion! It is a good learning resource for those wanting to see how such a codebase works. I do think they should have opened the repository as read-only and that may align more with the educational intent.
"We will only consider pull requests and issues regarding self-hosting or critical fixes. "
Having this makes the messaging a bit confusing. You will accept improvements and bug fixes which we can use commercially but you can't - Did I read that right?
decide1000
The license can be discussed here
felipemesquita
I understand the concern with calling something licensed with CC BY-NC “open source”, but I’m very interested in reading the complete source of a modern comercial app.
It’s rare that we get to see the complete picture of something that has many paying customers like this, and I’m thankful for the Campsite team for sharing it.
perfmode
It’s cool to see a recent Rails codebase in the wild. This’ll be helpful as a guide for me this year while I’m ramping up.
Campsite is not open source. From the LICENSE file on the repo [0]:
> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
[0] https://github.com/campsite/campsite/blob/dae5db8611e8adc057...