13 ms·
Oh yea, anything FUTO is not open source. Its merely source available.
by sleepycatgirl 2y ago
Oh yea, anything FUTO is not open source. Its merely source available.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoThat's what open source is. I have the application and I have the source code.
- sleepycatgirl 2y agoNope. It restricts modifications one can do, and how to distribute it. There is quite a stark difference between source available, and open source.
- praveenperera 2y agoYou can modify however you want, you just can't turn around and sell it.
- josephcsible 2y agoNo you can't. You're banned from removing their payment nag.
- skeledrew 2y agoWhy would you want to remove it? Do you reasonably see yourself digging into the code to remove that bit, rebuilding and reinstalling, compared to tapping "I have paid" once to dismiss (ideally after you actually have paid)?
- kvdveer 2y agoYou're missing "and I can use the source". Without that freedom, you really don't have the benefits of open source. This is commonly referred to as "source available".
- Onawa 2y agoNope, that's 'source available'. Open source usually means a non-restrictive license, ala https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd.
- lowkey 2y agoWhy is the OSI definition considered canonical? I mean the OSI: - didn’t invent the term open-source, they co-opted it from Christine Peterson who is not even a member of OSI - was founded by secret charter members and is funded by closed-source tech giants like Google, Apple, and Microsoft who make billions exploiting open-source software while giving virtually nothing back in return - is heavily influenced by these same corporate giants who steer decisions such as the definition of open-source for their personal profit above the needs of society
- thesuperbigfrog 2y ago>> Why is the OSI definition considered canonical? 'The introduction of the term "open source software" was a deliberate effort to make this field of endeavor more understandable to newcomers and to business, which was viewed as necessary to its spread to a broader community of users. The problem with the main earlier label, "free software," was not its political connotations, but that—to newcomers—its seeming focus on price is distracting. A term was needed that focuses on the key issue of source code and that does not immediately confuse those new to the concept. The first term that came along at the right time and fulfilled these requirements was rapidly adopted: open source.' Source: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source... This is from Christine Peterson's published account of how the term 'open source' came into popular usage. The term 'open source' in popular usage as defined by the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) has been in use for more than 25 years now. Let FUTO keep their "source first" license and use it to forward their goals, but do not create confusion by trying to co-opt the well-known and broadly understood meaning of "open source".
- lowkey 2y agoThe inventor of the term "open source software” defined it as software which includes the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code. She made no mention of the ability to commercialize without compensation. Those terms were only added in the OSI’s Open Source Definition (OSD)
- card_zero 2y agoYou might think so, I might think so, but apparently there's some gatekeeping about the term dating back to its invention in the 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so... "This article may be confusing or unclear to readers." Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source - Richard Stallman argues the "obvious meaning" of term "open source" is that the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_sof... - In a 1998 strategy session in California, "open-source software" was selected by Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Christine Peterson, and Eric S. Raymond. Richard Stallman had not been invited. I'm getting downvoted now for dissenting. :D
- prophesi 2y agoI would also agree that the common sense definition of open source should be public/accessible code. But FOSS is a well-established movement and anyone involved with software development should be well-acquainted with Free vs Open.
- card_zero 2y agoSo you mean the actual definition should not be the common sense one? That's probably pragmatic, yes.
- Brian_K_White 2y agoAlmost every word has some special meaning depending on the context it's used in. This is not controvercial. This is a silly argument to try to make a thing out of.
- 2y ago
- vdfs 2y agoThe trick is to star fully open source until you get popular then pull a licence change, aka Elastic/Redis/HashiCorp model
- wmf 2y agoNote that FUTO is not really doing that.
- okanat 2y agoI cannot understand purists TBH. Betting on big open source projects that has a broken financing structure and then getting surprised when the original company takes reins is not a good strategy neither for sustained open development of software nor the users of it. Yes the open core projects can be forked but almost none of the forks are successful in adoption. Terraform, Elasticsearch, MongoDB etc. kept almost all of their users. That's because the people who write the source and maintain that software (and them having a better livelihood) is more important than the actual source code. An unmaintained open-source software is (going to become) useless and expecting donations will not fix it. You can see the other examples that resulted in more open structures like LibreOffice. It continued to live and exist because its original developers forked it not because the license they chose.
- cvwright 2y agoNot true at all. We do use the "Source First" license for a lot of things, but all of my projects are OSI Certified (TM) Open Source. For example: * https://github.com/futo-org/circles-android https://github.com/futo-org/circles-android (AGPL) * https://github.com/futo-org/circles-ios https://github.com/futo-org/circles-ios (AGPL) * https://github.com/futo-org/matrix.swift https://github.com/futo-org/matrix.swift (Apache 2.0) There are a few other little things here and there, mostly Apache 2.0, but the above are the bigger ones. Edit: There is also Alex's Whisper finetuning repo https://github.com/futo-org/whisper-acft https://github.com/futo-org/whisper-acft (MIT)
- sleepycatgirl 2y agoI stand corrected, I am sorry. My mistake.I really should have checked it better...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lowkey 2y agoHey @cvwright, On a side note could you share the best way to provide feedback on Circles? I am a new user as I downloaded the app just today. It looks beautiful and I love that it runs Matrix but I ran into a number of usability issues that prevent me from adopting it as a first time user and I suspect it may affect others as well so I would love to share feedback.
- cvwright 2y agoHey, thanks for trying Circles. We are doing a lot of work on improving the usability this summer, so yes please send us any feedback. If you’re a Matrix user, come chat in #circles:futo.org. Otherwise the Github repos all have issues enabled so please feel free to file things there.
- lowkey 2y ago“Oh yea, anything FUTO is not open source. It’s merely source available” I disagree and so does FUTO but in the interest of making nice with the community, they now call their software license “source first.” Personally, I think of their license as open-source for humans, but not the for-profit legal fictions we call corporations. I am ok with that. Why does the OSI get to dictate the one true definition of open source? OSI didn’t invent the term. It was invented by Christine Peterson in 1998 and notably she is not even a member of OSI. They just co-opted the term from her. OSI was founded by still secret charter members and large corporate sponsors such as Google, Apple and Microsoft who make Billions off the back of free open source software while giving back almost nothing. FUTO was founded as an alternative to the tech oligopolies and their software is licensed as open-source except that they require separate licensing for commercial use, specifically to protect against exploitation by tech giants.
- card_zero 2y agoIs FUTO an acronym? https://www.futo.org/about/what-is-futo/ https://www.futo.org/about/what-is-futo/ doesn't say.
- Brian_K_White 2y agoThey don't dictate. It's an interesting reaction to suggest that. They developed a definition as a service and gave it to everyone to use just like one does with software or art. Other people have decided that they agree that this definition correctly describes a bag of concepts and principles they need some sungle convenient collective term for. They "dictate" the definition only in the same way you "dictate" the contents of anything you wrote, or the way you "dictate" what your own name is. If I say "Foo is not an OSI approved license." I am the one "dictating" something. I am using a definition that was written down so that it's available for me to use as a reference when I want to say the entire bag of principles without having to spell them all out each time in a tweet or something. All the OSI did is write down some ideals and principles the same as a wikipedia page. They have no power to "dictate" that you exhibit those values. If you don't hold those principles, then don't. What, you want to be able to call yourself a saint and enjoy the admiration due to saints, without having to actually live up to the annoying things that actually make a saint worthy of that admiration? Ok.