Programmer, Gamer
i mean if its like most transit in the US they just think busses are useless… My nearest bus stop is just out my window not that i see much need its a infrequent scheduled to no where useful… I think they need to talk about 15min house to riding the bus… not just distance in this case
in many suburbs there are just no sidewalks, and busy multi lane roads… So even if its under a mile away, you can’t walk there.
If you are in and older town, with the old downtown, its not so bad. So most people in east coast cities, and older towns have access to walk into town. There are exceptions accross the contry… However Any Town USA has its stores in a strip mall with a wallmart on a busy strode and no foot access.
But the local goverment can prevent bars in strip malls, on strides with no walking or transit access.
The town needs to make the downtown walkable, and ideally accessable by walking. The rest is just local businesses buying / renting store fronts, may be a local pub, cafe, fruit stand, toy store ect.
Now maybe there is an overlap between what i considered a bar/pub and what those replying are calling a resturaunt since i want something like i have here in Madison NJ: a few pubs to get dinner and a pint 15min walk into town… Yes this is at bar seating because im on my own… But they all have dining rooms, and casual fare with much of the clients being families of all ages just having a meal in town.
Im confused about (from the poll)
First realize what is being talked about is the generally agreed upon open source definition https://opensource.org/osd
While it seems they have simplified the license removing some reasons it’s not to be considered open source, it’s still restricting commercial uses in the following two restrictions:
"You may distribute the software or provide it to others only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes.
Notwithstanding the above, you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor in any copy you distribute to others."
In short open source would only require the software be distributed with source under the same licensed as recieved, thus can’t restrict it to non-commercial, nor prevent the changing of payment details.
Obviously it’s a reasonably permissive license, and possibly won’t impact you from using it as an end user. It’s just has some restrictions for the creators to request payment, and to prevent third parties profiting off the product. Think Creative Commons, share alike, non-commercial for software. (While most will consider this fair its not quite fully open)
One reason they went this route was to prevent third parties form distributing their software with ads and using it in systems they are actively attempting to provide alternatives for (ie software that may spy on your system useage/and call home) the non-commercial clause has more teeth than say MIT where it would be relicensed, or GPL that while the software source would need to be provided might still be embedded in a ecosystem.