No, it's not clear, and I guess that's up to the courts to decide.
But in my (non-lawyer) opinion - if the reproduced code is substantial/unique enough to be deemed to be covered by the license, then it's also substantial/unique enough to be subject to that license requirement.
There's a bit of disagreement in this subthread over what "Open Source" means. I think the issue here is that there multiple ways that people define "open source":
1) The source is viewable (regardless of license)
2) The source is licensed under an OSI-approved license [1] (and thus also viewable)
There other definitions that I've seen as well, but I think these two are the main ones in play here.
It's clear to me from the context that slooonz is using the 2nd definition, but it's also clear from the disagreement that others are using the 1st definition (or one close to it).
Down thread [0], another user linked a page from the FSF [2]. It says:
>The official definition of “open source software” (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their definition agrees with our definition in most cases.
>However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source.
>Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term.
So I think the disagreements come from not defining Open Source in the same way.
And for the record, I agree (using definition 2 from above) that adding a clause to the license to restrict who can use the software would make it no longer Open Source per OSI's definition [3]:
> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
While I agree with the other comments about the implications of your "quackery" phrasing, I want to chime in and say that overall, I really appreciate that you wrote that page.
I think it's unusual to see a company basically say "here's why you might not want to use our product". The ones that do often come across as "here are our issues, but here's why they don't really matter and you should use us anyway". While some parts of the page do maybe seem to do a little of the latter (the "quackery" sections are a good example), the overall tone I get is "here is why we might not be a good fit for you", and I find that rather refreshing.
I'm sure some people will see your "take it or leave it" approach as user-hostile. And perhaps on some level it is. But in my opinion, it's far less user-hostile than hiding those choices/limitations in order to get signups, with the user then finding out about them later and having buyer's remorse.
thanks for calling that out, and despite my criticism upthread I have to fully agree with this - the wording can be improved but this kind of documentation is great to have!
I understand why this change is needed - jerks often ruin things. But I hope that DO will refine the approach a bit, as opt-in-only will probably kill Hacktoberfest for me.
The intersection of projects that I use or care about, the projects that are in a language that I'm interested in using (or even learning), the projects that are on github, and the projects that will actually opt in even after the events of the last few days, well... I'm guessing that set is going to be pretty small. Quite frankly I don't want to spend more time searching/scrolling through github trying to find contributions to make than I do actually contributing.
Of course, none of that probably matters, as I realize I'm not the target audience for Hacktoberfest: I regularly contribute to open source projects. Whether or not I get a t-shirt won't change that, but I'm not going to lie - I've enjoyed getting the shirts (and stickers!), and wear them often. They can be good conversation starters, and it's also nice to have a tangible reminder of my contributions, since so much of what we do in this field is completely intangible. Though, to your point, the potential implications of the t-shirts going forward may change my feelings on wearing them.
And I completely agree w/r/t to communication. Earlier today I made a PR and refreshed my Hacktoberfest profile to make sure it picked it up, only to see it marked as not valid due to not being in an approved repository. So I went looking for an explanation and eventually wound up in this thread. As you noted, there was no mention of it on the site, no email, etc. There also doesn't appear to be a contact email listed anywhere on the Hacktoberfest site.
Not the author, but I recently started down the FPGA rabbit hole myself.
I started with HDLBits [0], which has a bunch of problems that you solve by writing verilog that is then run in a simulator. It starts with simple gates and such, and then builds up from there.
I also purchased a dev board from NANDLand [1] and have been going through the tutorials written for their board. A lot of code is provided for you in the tutorials, but I've been reimplementing it all from scratch as part of the learning process. The later tutorials cover things like UART send/receive and simple VGA.
I'm not affiliated with either site, but have found both to be helpful. Good luck!
