this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
4 points (53.7% liked)
Open Source
30302 readers
2234 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is it actually open source now?
nope. But it keeps getting spammed on lemmy...
Source avaliable. they want to change the license tho
According to the license, it is better than source available. You can modify and redistribute, you just can't sell it. Other than that caveat, as far as I can tell, your rights are basically the same as with other open source licenses. (Feel free to correct me if I've missed something.)
Section 4 is what gets me. Your rights are temporary and revokable meaning the the rest of the license doesn't matter in the long term
Yeah, that just leaves the door open for enshittification. "Trust me bro" vibes. This license needs a better Ulysses pact.
Rossmann stated that this license is to keep fake versions riddled with ads or similar scammy stuff from mudding the water. I'm sure he agrees that this is not optimal.
I saw the video. There has to be a way to accomplish that without leaving the possibility of retroactively changing the license in the future.
Thankfully, the plugins that I've looked at are released with an open source license.
I know I will not be putting effort into porting my subscriptions over as long as the license allows them to fuck users over if company ownership changes its mind or if it gets sold.
It seems cool, but even the documentation is locked away behind a link that requires authentication, so it's going to be annoying for anyone to try to make a plugin. I want to make a youtube plugin with sponsorblock, so I reached out to ask how to access the documentation basically when Louis's video went live and have yet to hear a response.
Also, polycentric is going to need some form of moderation because, as it stands, it's chock full of racial slurs and other awful stuff.
Same way Firefox does. Trade marks. They want to protect the reputation of their trade marks, that is enforceable, and then they can let people fork to their hearts content (waterfox, iceweasle, librewolf, the tor browser, etc).
My problem with this is, what stops people from simply violating the license anyways? Is futo going to go after every license violator? Do they even have the power to do so?
I've seen people make adware versions of closed source apps as well, so even not having the code public and online doesn't stop people.
~~I also don't believe it's even fully source availiable. There are no build instructions, and you can't clone all the submodules without signing in to their closed application gitlab instance. If anyone has sucessfully built it from source, please lmk.~~
Nevermind they did add build instructions since I last checked. Still lmk if anyone's tested them.
not really as the FUTO temporary license restricts the use of the source code
https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay