FUTO rebrands license as 'Source First'

https://www.futo.org/about/futo-statement-on-opensource/

>The community has told us that “open source” has a particular meaning to them and suggested we call it “source available” instead. We have been reluctant to do so for numerous reasons
>Source available is not a real licensing standard and is so wildly generalized that it applies to free software, “open source” software, and in some cases even proprietary software.
>Often, source available licenses require users to pay to access source code and then restrict the distribution of it to paying organizations. These restrictions do not apply to our software whatsoever.
>Using such an overly broad catch-all category that applies to nearly anything does not adequately inform people about what they can and cannot do with our software.
Thoughts? What do you guys think of a license that demands compensation if a company uses 'Source First' code?

Die For Epstein's Client List Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Die For Epstein's Client List Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Literally who

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody that matters

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It makes sense to a degree but I don't know how they can enforce 5 and 6. Besides that, it really looks like they want something like AGPL+selling exception.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I don't know how they can enforce 5 and 6.
      I think it's just good ol' revoking the license/suing.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      probably suing.
      I personally like the intent of the license and can see myself adopting it. I fricking hate the amount of freeloading commies in OpenSource and Free software.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It seems to be just the GPL but instead of giving back contributions, you need to give back $$$$. If that dude who made core-js had this kind of license, he would probably be an instant millionaire overnight.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          lets be honest 99% of the time very few people actually help contributing or donating.
          It's like that thing my school did where they made a corner specifically so that kids could "give away" snacks to poorer kids.
          It lasted about a week and the people who took the snacks were not poor kids but buttholes.
          You need money and I am tired of seeing good devs not be paid for their work.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            this
            i should receive money each time google provisions a linux server or my landlord buys an android phone

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you actually develop an opensource component google uses for android actively then yes you should be paid for that.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    sounds like FUTA

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        lel godbless ay-eye

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >we want to have cake and eat it too
    ok, go try i guess

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't this just coming up with a name for licenses broadly like the Elastic License that the OSI reject as open? Might be useful for distributions, but don't think it'll catch in the broader awareness.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Does these licenses even matter if you don't have an army to enforce them.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    kinda sounds like AGPL
    it's fine by me, as long as I can build and run the stuff myself then there's nothing wrong with it

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    tf is immich

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Google Photos but open source and self-hosted.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If I can't modify and run it on my server without sharing my literal fricking backend code, it's garbage and I'll never touch it with a 10 foot pole, simple as.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you can for personal use, but you cannot offer this as a SaaSS (service as a software substitute)

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Licenses are completely irrelevant for personal use.
        I'm not going to use anything for my own development whose license is garbage and would render the end product non free as in freedom for me to do whatever I want.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Considering that "open source" is a malicious movement created by big companies to embrace and extinguish free software communities, anyone who opposes them is doing good, even if it sadly comes from the opposite side. Frick the OSI.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Good!
    Free Software developers need to realize just how hard big tech corporations are freeloading.
    If you choose any "permissive" license, you factually work for free for Amazon, Microsoft and Google.
    GPL and AGPL are far better, but depending on the project, can still get you screwed over.

    I think SSPL is the way to go. It not only forces server software any its modifications to be open source, but also everything that is needed to run it.
    No more
    >large corporation builds a module or plugin system to your open source software and then develops proprietary

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    tl;dr it's proprietary garbage

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    5 and 6 are extremely vague and are probably going to blow up in weird ways that very few people will accurately predict.

    Otherwise (belligerence aside) it seems nice.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Or just call it what it is. It's proprietary software. You want to still have the power of a proprietor. You still want to be able to revoke the license for arbitrary reasons. You don't want to see your code reworked in any Foss licensed software. You don't even allow the first freedom of free software.

    It's clear as day. Just be upfront about it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The four freedoms in free software are to run, study, redistribute, modify the software.

      Point one (of the screenshot) gives you the source which corresponds to studying.

      Point two explicitly states modifying and redistributing, and implies running (modify for own use).

      Point four through six are about the FUTO organization goals/requirements. They don't care about open source projects that interface with proprietary services. They don't care about client-only projects.

      All of this is essentially about funding free software while avoiding direct association to Stallman and the FSF. Or OSI.

      And on that note, it's also about creating an organization which they are paid to administer and control. So far FUTO seems to be privately funded rich-guy project, but I wouldn't be surprised if they become a non-profit beggar organization in the future.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    open source is synonymous with "shitty unstable software" anyway, so it's smart to shy away from the label

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All Computer Programs should be public domain.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hey bro, how bout getting some FUPA funding?
    Yo homie yo gettin sum o dat FUTA funding homie

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >focusing on licensing drama homosexualry instead of programming
    will be its downfall

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *