The creator of Nearby Glasses made the app after reading 404 Media’s coverage of how people are using Meta’s Ray-Bans smartglasses to film people without their knowledge or consent. “I consider it to be a tiny part of resistance against surveillance tech.”
more at: @[email protected]
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.
Thank you for writing down my own thoughts down. I see this so often and it always irks me.
"oh but you’re limiting your reach with this license because the companies won’t want to us— boo fucking hoo, maybe not everything is about market-share and having a morbillion downloads.
This is not a remotely unpopular opinion, sharing is awesome and corpos can suck it
I know, and yet the code is open source. Confusing.
No, the code is available, which is not the same as open source.
They do call it “open source” in the docs though.
True, but I have no issue preventing commercial use. I view that as just as good if not better than traditional open source.
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.