[trickstra]

Non-commercial is not open-source, because if the original copyright holder stops maintaining it, nobody else can continue (or has to work like a slave for free). Open-source is about what happens if the original author stops working on it. Open-source gives everyone the license to continue developing it, which obviously means also the ability to get paid. Don't call it open-source if this aspect is missing.

Only the FLUX.1 [schnell] is open-source (Apache2), FLUX.1 [dev] is non-commercial.

[uxhacker]

There is OpenFLUX.1 which is a fine tune of the FLUX.1-schnell model that has had the distillation trained out of it. OpenFLUX.1 is licensed Apache 2.0. https://huggingface.co/ostris/OpenFLUX.1/

[starfezzy]

Doesn’t open source mean the source is viewable/inspectable? I don’t know any closed source apps that let you view the source.

[dredmorbius]

"Open Source" has a specific definition, created by the Open Source Initiative:

<https://opensource.org/osd>

Certain usages may be covered by trademark protection, as an "OSI Approved License":

<https://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines>

It's based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), which were adopted by the Debian Project to determine what software does, and does not, qualify to be incorporated into the core distribution. (There is a non-free section, it is not considered part of the core distribution.)

<https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines>

Both definitions owe much to the Free Software Foundation's "Free Software" definition and the four freedoms protected by the GNU GPL:

- the freedom to use the software for any purpose,

- the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,

- the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and

- the freedom to share the changes you make.

<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3>

<https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>

[miki123211]

> Doesn’t open source mean the source is viewable/inspectable?

According to the OSI definition, you also need a right to modify the source and/or distribute patches.

> I don’t know any closed source apps that let you view the source.

A lot of them do, especially in the open-core space. THe model is called source-available.

If you're selling to enterprises and not gamers, that model makes sense. What stops large enterprises from pirating software is their own lawyers, not DRM.

This is why you can put a lot of strange provisions into enterprise software licenses, even if you have little to no way to enforce these provisions on a purely technical level.

[havaker]

Open source usually means that you are able to modify and redistribute the software in question freely. However between open and closed, there is another class - source-available software. From its wikipedia page:

> Any software is source-available in the broad sense as long its source code is distributed along with it, even if the user has no legal rights to use, share, modify or even compile it.

[trickstra]

As I said above: Open-source is about what happens if the original author stops working on it. Having the code viewable/inspectable is a side effect of that - can't sustain a project if all you have are blobs. Famously, Richard Stallman started GNU because he wanted to fix a printer: "Particular incidents that motivated this include a case where an annoying printer couldn't be fixed because the source code was withheld from users." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sourc...

[aqme28]

Website frontends are always source viewable, but that is not OSS.