Campsite switches to Creative Commons Non-Commercial license

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

License choice and “open source” labeling

  • Repo is under Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial (CC BY‑NC), explicitly not an OSI-approved open-source license.
  • Many argue this is “source-available,” not open source; CC licenses (especially NC) are seen as a poor fit for software.
  • Some object to calling it “open source” in the README and original HN title; others say “open source” should mean simply “source is visible,” but are pushed back with OSI/FSF/DFSG definitions.
  • Suggestions include relicensing under GPL/AGPL, EUPL, MIT, or Apache to align with FOSS norms, especially since the product is winding down.

Non-commercial clause and ambiguity

  • NC terms are criticized as vague: unclear what counts as “commercial use,” particularly for internal use by for‑profit companies, SaaS hosting, or paid education.
  • Some interpret NC as allowing internal deployment but forbidding selling access; others cite CC’s own guidance and a German court case to argue that most organizational use is commercial.
  • Several commenters say they would avoid using this code in any serious context due to legal uncertainty and incompatibility with GPL and similar licenses.

Acquihire and competitive concerns

  • Notion has acquired the Campsite team; many infer the NC license is to avoid enabling competitors while still publishing the code.
  • This is seen as rational from Notion’s perspective but disappointing for those hoping for a true community fork.

Impact on users and trust in SaaS

  • Former or potential customers feel “rug-pulled”: service shut down with a short migration window, then code released under a license that likely prohibits commercial self‑hosting.
  • This fuels broader skepticism toward closed or VC‑backed SaaS and strengthens arguments for choosing real open-source tools upfront.

Educational value and codebase interest

  • Despite licensing issues, several people appreciate access to a modern, production Rails codebase as a learning resource.
  • Some say a read‑only repo might have matched that educational intent more clearly than accepting limited PRs.

Alternatives and general reflections

  • Commenters recommend existing OSS chat/project tools (e.g., Zulip, Matrix/Element, Mattermost, Nextcloud Talk, IRC) as safer long‑term bets.
  • There is debate over whether open source is really about “free labor” vs. mostly paid development, and whether the community’s expectations around reciprocity are reasonable.