FUTO License: changes to our license & the reasoning behind it
www.youtube.com
https://gitlab.futo.org/eron/public/-/wikis/FUBShttps://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/commit/035d19f581daaa3c773ab8e6e1bc5ad970605f4d

Source First License 1.1: https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master/LICENSE.md

This is a non-open source license. They were claiming to be open source at one point, but they’ve listened to the community and stopped claiming they were open source. They are not trying to be Open Source™.

They call themselves “source first”. https://sourcefirst.com/

They’re trying to create a world where developers can make money from writing source first software, where the big tech oligarchy can’t just suck them dry.

  • paequ2@lemmy.todayOP
    0·
    16 days ago

    And I love how you glossed over all of that to get a little bit hurt at me. …

    Sorry, the reason I glossed over that is because I didn’t want to get involved in that conversation. I was just trying to get the conversation back on topic. I don’t endorse the personal attacks.

    So what if google also benefits?

    Why are we ok with workers not getting paid for their labor? Would you still work at your job if they didn’t pay you? These companies aren’t small shops, they’re huge giants that in some cases are destroying countries. They’ll be ok if they have to share a tiny fraction of their obscene wealth with regular people.

    TCP, SSL, and thousands of standard technology. Should those be charged as well?

    That’s a great question. I’m not really sure actually. Btw, I don’t think Open Source™ should go away. I do think there could be a middle ground though. There should be more nuance than just 0% give away or 100% give away.

    Even small utilities can contribute to people learning and adapting. … It’s such a boogy man at the cost of other people learning and benefiting from what you’ve done the same way you benfit from others.

    I think you may be confusing Source Available with Closed Source. Source Available licenses don’t stop regular people from creating a community, contributing, learning, adapting, improving software. They do stop companies from making money off of your work though.

    • DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1·
      16 days ago

      I’m not confusing the two. If I copy the “source available” and accidently remember it in a “commercial” product, I’m technically hooped. It’s considered derivative work and therefore I’m in violation of the license. Regardless if I’m a simple app dev or Google.

      Also, like I said a few times now. I done own the code I contribute. Technically meaning if you contribute code, and use that snippet in a commercial context, again, your in violation of the license.

      This is why copy left is the defacto standard. The author of the code retains copywrite ownership of it.

      Your still resolving solved problems.