Programming

20055 readers

124 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

FUTO License, an alternative to Closed Source (www.youtube.com)

submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by paequ2@lemmy.today to c/programming@programming.dev

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (4 children)

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.

[–] paequ2@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Ooooh, wait. I think I understood one of your points better now...

I done (don't?) 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.

So, I think you're saying, what if you contribute some code to a source available project, maybe some boilerplate that's the same everywhere, and then you use that same contribution in a commercial product? Then you'd be in violation of the source available license? Is that what you're saying?

This seems like a good reason NOT to contribute to a source available project, which is totally fine. Whereas this is possible with GPL if you 100% own the code and didn't sign a CLA.

However, not all projects are "I want everyone to pitch in and I want everyone to own the project." There are lots of projects where 1 dude or 1 company want to retain ownership of their app and don't need or want outside contributors. Normally, they'd probably just be closed source—maybe they might consider being source available.

(Just as long as they don't pretend to be Open Source™, in which case fuck them.)

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What's the point of source available if I'm never allowed to derive value from it?

[–] paequ2@lemmy.today 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

FUTO specifically allows you to derive value from a project like this:

You may use or modify the software only for non-commercial purposes such as personal use for research, experiment, and testing for the benefit of public knowledge, personal study, private entertainment, hobby projects, amateur pursuits, or religious observance, all without any anticipated commercial application.

You may distribute the software or provide it to others only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes.

Yes, it's a different set of value than Open Source™ gives you. Again, they're not claiming to provide the same value as Open Source™. (They're also not trying to replace Open Source™.) Yes, it's not the value that you want. Yes, that's by design.

Do you also think, what's the point of Google Search, Windows, WhatsApp, YouTube, Instagram, etc if you can't derive any "value" from it, where "value" means Open Source™ value? Those apps are still insanely valuable to users, even if they don't get Open Source™ value from them.

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

So the first line of what you quite says you can't.

I'm a professional developer. If I learn and use it in my job, I'm in violation of the licese.

What I mean by value is the ability to learn and use it as you wish. Without worry of if your going against a license.