Small objections to the licensing terms, and the name...
I've recently been considering making my own open source nutrition app, (since every single one I've looked at seems to either violate my privacy&security, or is designed/works very poorly), but the available "open" nutrition info databases for bootstrapping have seemed poor.
So I looked at the license of this database, and the idea of making it "open" is good and maybe appropriate. But the attribution requirements to promote this other, commercial, product are a little annoying. And could also be a little confusing in app store listings.
> Attribution Requirements: If you display or use any data from this dataset, you must provide clear attribution to "OpenNutrition" with a link to https://www.opennutrition.app in:
> * Every interface where data is displayed
> * Application store listings
> * Your website
> * Legal/about sections
Additionally, I've soured on single companies that call themselves "open". "Open" has a few-decades history in computers, as everyone realized the dangers and costs of proprietary lock-ins, and so created concepts such as "open systems" and "open standards". Appropriating the "open" term for a single company, for something more proprietary than open (like the very proprietary OpenAI that's mentioned many times in https://www.opennutrition.app/about ), rubs a bit the wrong way.
I've recently been considering making my own open source nutrition app, (since every single one I've looked at seems to either violate my privacy&security, or is designed/works very poorly), but the available "open" nutrition info databases for bootstrapping have seemed poor.
So I looked at the license of this database, and the idea of making it "open" is good and maybe appropriate. But the attribution requirements to promote this other, commercial, product are a little annoying. And could also be a little confusing in app store listings.
> Attribution Requirements: If you display or use any data from this dataset, you must provide clear attribution to "OpenNutrition" with a link to https://www.opennutrition.app in:
> * Every interface where data is displayed
> * Application store listings
> * Your website
> * Legal/about sections
Additionally, I've soured on single companies that call themselves "open". "Open" has a few-decades history in computers, as everyone realized the dangers and costs of proprietary lock-ins, and so created concepts such as "open systems" and "open standards". Appropriating the "open" term for a single company, for something more proprietary than open (like the very proprietary OpenAI that's mentioned many times in https://www.opennutrition.app/about ), rubs a bit the wrong way.