
A WebGL canvas-based volume viewer - bryanrasmussen
https://github.com/AllenInstitute/volume-viewer
======
est31
> This software license is the 2-clause BSD license > plus clause a third
> clause that prohibits redistribution for commercial purposes without further
> permission.

[https://github.com/AllenInstitute/volume-
viewer/blob/master/...](https://github.com/AllenInstitute/volume-
viewer/blob/master/LICENSE.txt)

I really like what the allen institute is doing and that they put so many
interesting talks onto their YouTube channel, but clauses like this make it
proprietary software.

~~~
eps
No, it most certainly does not. Stop with this nonsense.

This makes this software ineligible to be called "open source" as per OSI
definition. That's it.

The world is not binary. Not everything that 100% free and open is
proprietary. If it's not an OSI-approved license, but the source is open and
avaialble for tinkering, changing and redistribution, even if conditionally,
the altruistic spirit is still there and it's still an approach that is
welcoming of a typical O/S use.

However this also allows authors to reserve rights for commercializing their
work later on and it's an absolutely fair arrangement. No reason to denigrate
their work because of that.

~~~
PyroLagus
I suppose this is quite relevant here: [https://words.steveklabnik.com/the-
culture-war-at-the-heart-...](https://words.steveklabnik.com/the-culture-war-
at-the-heart-of-open-source)

> However this also allows authors to reserve rights for commercializing their
> work later on and it's an absolutely fair arrangement.

They could've also used AGPL for that. A popular option.

The license says, "For purposes of this license, commercial purposes is the
incorporation of the Allen Institute's software into anything for which you
will charge fees or other compensation." Does that include ads? It certainly
seems to include donations. And I suppose requiring attribution could be seen
as "other compensation". It's kinda broad, but even if it was strictly "don't
sell this standalone", it still wouldn't be FOSS or open source imo. It's fine
for studying the code, but it's not any better than "source available"
software, such as UE4. And if do study the code, you'll have the same legal
landmines to deal with as when studying "source available" code. I'd even say
that UE4's license is _better_ , because at least it doesn't cause confusion
over whether it's open source.

> No reason to denigrate their work because of that.

I don't think anyone did. They just said it's not open source, which seems
like a fair assessment to me. Saying that Windows isn't open source doesn't
denigrate Microsoft's work either. Open source doesn't mean good, and
proprietary doesn't mean bad. This volume-viewer just isn't open source,
regardless of its quality.

~~~
huhtenberg
> _They could 've also used AGPL for that. A popular option._

That's not even close in intent.

Under A/GPL terms anyone can take a project as is, slap a logo on it, make a
binary and start selling it, provided that they make sources available. That's
_exactly_ the case that the Commons Clause prohibits, so AGPL does an absolute
zilch here.

------
Lichtso
Screenshots and demo videos would help a lot

~~~
swalsh
I cloned the code to run the demo... here's a screenshot:

[https://imgur.com/a/1yex4Qy](https://imgur.com/a/1yex4Qy)

It's kind of a cool demo.

------
dmt-gfx
That code is used in the Allen Institute's online 3d cell image catalog seen
here:

[https://www.allencell.org/cell-feature-
explorer.html](https://www.allencell.org/cell-feature-explorer.html)

and also in the 3d data explorer contained in this presentation:

[https://imsc.allencell.org/](https://imsc.allencell.org/)

------
macawfish
Wow! It feels fast and looks great. I'm still waiting for someone to make a
WebGL viewer for SSVDAGs, but maybe that's wishful thinking.

