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.
Well, if they want to try that they are of course free to try, but the argument has a big gaping hole:
They might not ever change the license terms afterwards for software already on your hard-drive, but they absolutely can do so for updates and likely will. Normally that would result in a fork if the new terms are bad, but who would be willing to fork software under a restrictive non-commercial license that doesn’t even allow you to collect donations for running the infrastructure?
So in the end you are basically back at square one with nothing but nice promises by them and still vendor locked.
Hm. That’s a good question actually. I get the feeling this FUTO license is more designed for local apps, not SaaS.
If the license changes to something hostile. The users can keep using the version before the new license. Someone could even fork the project and offer it for free. This is allowed.
You may distribute the software or provide it to others only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes.
But for SaaS, there’s also the cost of running servers on the cloud… so you either foot the bill and offer the SaaS for free OR you ask for a commercial license.
Which… actually… is this the end of the world?
You could still have your fork. People could still offer it online publicly. But as soon as you start getting so many users that you need to ask for donations, then you’d have to pay.
Seems like individual app users wouldn’t be affected much. Only people setting themselves up to be service providers would end up paying.
Yes, you could continue using the old unmaintained app, but this is similar to using old proprietary app versions that lack security updates and are always at risk of stopping to work due to some changes in your OS. So that is far from ideal.
Non-commercial is really not well defined legally. For example in Germany, a public tax funded broadcaster was found in breach of a CC-BY-NC license for using an image on their website. And many similar legal examples exist. So basically anything that involves a service offered to more than one person, even if totally free and donation funded, is not safe from litigation.
And obviously, if upstream changes the license to something that triggers a hostile fork, it is unlikely that you will get a commercial license for that hostile fork. Furthermore, even if you somehow can make a deal, you will always remain hostage of that proprietary license.
FOSS licenses are explicitly designed to protect the users of the software from such potentially abusive licensing, so I really don’t think anyone will see this as an improvement.
deleted by creator
“FUTA License” would sound more fun ngl
Oi mate, you got a loicense for that dick?
i don’t. Come arrest me, officer >:3
I don’t know if I should “come” just yet O-O
Bruce Perens is working on something related with the Post-Open license.
TIL! Interesting!
Every time this licenses comes up I have to repeat myself: It’s source-available proprietary (free)ware; “source first” is “open source washing” at it’s finest
From an old comment of mine:
[…] It strips you of the options the four essential freedoms provide.
IMO [“but protecting muh devs and making it financially viable as a for-profit”] is not rly an argument. Libre software is free as in freedom and not necessarily free as in beer. You could license it under the (A)GPL, charge for downloads in the Play store or for compiled binaries on ur website and ask for donations on F-Droid.
You could even do a freemium version where some features are locked in the binaries you distribute and need a license from ur website or smth (for those who don’t want to use Google Play). (iirc SD Maid 2/SE does this)
E.g.: AFAIK the QT Framework (which I don’t particularly like) is dual licensed, making it both Foss that ppl have to contribute back to and viable as a for-profit
You could license it under the (A)GPL, charge for downloads in the Play store or for compiled binaries on ur website and ask for donations on F-Droid.
You could even do a freemium version where some features are locked in the binaries you distribute and need a license from ur website or smth (for those who don’t want to use Google Play). (iirc SD Maid 2/SE does this)
Someone else could just compile the app themselves, unlock all premium features and distribute it to play store without violating the license?
open source washing
I definitely agree with you on this IF the company is claiming to be Open Source™, but then uses a source available license.
However, FUTO is NOT claiming to be Open Source™.
I think about it this way: either a business releases the app as close source and users can’t see anything OR the app is released as source available and users can see what’s going on. Contributions are not expected and may not even be allowed. Open Source™ wouldn’t even be considered as an option.
i will never understand what people hope to accomplish with these licenses, when even the fucking GPL isn’t particularly reliable.
a license is only useful if it can actually be enforced and people are willing to interact with it, if a license isn’t robustly worded and thought out or it’s simply not backed by a trusted group, it’s basically entirely pointless.
I maintain that the GPL is the best license purely because it has the FSF behind it and it has been used since time immemorial, it’s one of few open source licenses that has seen repeated stress testing in courts and stood up to it.
You did not watch the video, I see. Because if you had, you’d know what they are trying to accomplish. He says it 3 minutes into the video. Probably shorter than it took you to type out that uninformed comment.
i will never understand what people hope to accomplish with these licenses
It’s simple. The point is to stop Amazon, Google, etc from selling your product.
not backed by a trusted group, it’s basically entirely pointless.
FUTO has money to fight for the FUTO license. MariaDB, Hashicorp, Sentry etc have money to fight for the BUSL license.
@paequ2 “You may use or modify the software only for non-commercial purposes” this license appears to be non-free too, as it breaks freedom 0, the freedom to run the program for any purpose
FUTO License is not open source. They do not claim to be open source. They’re not trying to be open source. They call themselves “source first”.
@paequ2 Ok
i want talking about Open SOuece anyaway. i was taling about free softwareAh, yep. FUTO License is neither Free™ nor Open Source™ (nor are they trying to be). However, they still allow users to see, modify, and distribute code.
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.
But, yeah, they’re aiming for something different.
There’s no derivative licence that makes the source free to use but forces you to contribute (work or money), if you make money from it?
Here’s what I’ve found:
- BUSL 1.1: a source available license that grants the right to copy, modify, create derivative works, redistribute, and make non-production use of the Licensed Work. If you release v1 of your app, 4 years later v1 becomes Open Source™. However, the latest version is still blocked from “production use”. This actually seems pretty reasonable.
- Post Open: a source available license (and whole organization) that’s broken into 2 parts: zero-cost license for regular users and a paid contract for commercial use. It sounds like the Post Open Collective would go out and enforce and charge companies to use Post Open software and then pay devs. (Not ready yet!)
Hashicorp recently switch to BUSL 1.1 for Terraform (and other things), which a lot of people got pissed about… which I understand! They took all of the community’s contributions and then changed the terms on them! I get that.
However, starting a project from scratch with BUSL 1.1 and then not claiming to be Open Source™ seems totally fine to me. Contributions from the public may come or may not. That’s fine. A lot of projects don’t have a rich community of people all over the world contributing. A lot of projects are just 1 dude or 1 company doing 95% of the dev work. That’s fine. If you don’t want to contribute to a project because it’s source available instead of Open Source™ that’s tooootally fine.
The regular user, however, would still mostly get the benefits of Open Source™. The people affected would be the ones trying to make money off of your app.
Interesting, I understand where they’re coming from, but as others have said, I still feel like it’s shady to keep calling it “open source” when open source is already well defined.
I think they have a noble mission, yet I can’t really say I like their means. Maybe in that “finding a middle ground”, since they’re mostly making consumer software, a lot of that payment part could have been covered by simply providing their releases under a payment on the app distribution channels (Play Store, their website, others?), most people that would pay would do so to avoid going through hoops to get the app for free through other means. That way they could have afforded to be actually open source. Maybe it wouldn’t be as effective though, I can’t know for sure, at the end of the day it’s a battle of idealsI still feel like it’s shady to keep calling it “open source” when open source is already well defined.
They are not open source. They do not currently claim to be open source.
https://futo.org/about/futo-statement-on-opensource/
calling our software “open source.” … we’re changing. … We’ll use the term “source first” instead for our projects.
Ok that’s good, I was thinking that since Rossman had thrown the term around many times in the video
deleted by creator
I am using Futo Keyboard. Downloaded it when it was marketed as open source. Unfortunately found out a few days ago it isn’t actually open source. It’s still a damn good keyboard, but it’s still unfortunate. AGPL exists for a reason. Oh well.
That framework laptop tho 💦💦💦
Edit: the comments on here really show that 1) people just read headlines and 2) many people cannot think for themselves and will just quote or regurgitate from whichever text they were indoctrinated without second thought. The “but it’s not free as in freedom” and “it’s not opensource because it’s not OSI” comments show up on every single post about this topic. It’s like people referring to the bible and screaming “blasphemy” when someone says something that doesn’t fit. Or like people losing their minds because a non-white actor is “not canon”.
I wish people had to answer multiple choice questions before being allowed to comment. Maybe it would make them actually think instead of just spew their religious bile all over the comment section.
sure, keep insulting people with principles while buying into proprietary software being “open source washed” (for the lack of a better word)
