4 ms·

How about putting it in something that you want to get packaged in Debian or Fedora?

by josephcsible 2y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
https://futo.org/open-source-definition/ https://futo.org/open-source-definition/ Where is that not allowed?
- josephcsible 2y ago
  Debian and Fedora both only allow FOSS in their repositories.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    Sounds like a Fedora and Debian problem.
    - samatman 2y ago
      Having standards for what software they allow into their package ecosystem is not a problem at all. It's a solution, actually.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
        Right but Fedora or Debian's policies prevent this, not FUTO
JeremyNT 2y ago
Or, for example, F-Droid (more relevant for mobile apps).
futo_hn 2y ago
We are about to package a few of our pieces of software across several repositories. Not sure what issue you think might come up with that? If we are not allowed because of some restriction you can just manually add our repos to your /etc/apt/sources.list which is perfectly normal.
- thenewnewguy 2y ago
  Fedora license requirements [1]: > A license is allowed if Fedora determines that the license is a free software / open source license. At a high level, the inquiry involves determining whether the license provides software freedom, and (equivalently) making sure that the license does not place burdens on users' exercise of its permissions that are inconsistent with evolving community norms and traditions around what is acceptable in a free software / open source license. The BUSL is on their list of not allowed licenses[2], so I find it highly unlikely your similar "non-commercial use only" license will be permitted. [1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-approval https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-approval [2]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/ https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licen...
em-bee 2y ago
what FUTO and others (eg bruce perens) are trying to figure out is how to make sure that profits made from the software go back to the original developers. in the past linux distributions were needed because distributing software was difficult an the distributions helped get the software to the end users. today distributing software is easy, and if i want my application usable on debian all i need is to create a debian package that i can distribute myself. which means i can use a more restrictive license and prevent big companies from taking advantage of my work for free. it is not clear yet what the right approach here is, but getting my application into debian proper is unlikely to help me make any money, so why bother? i therefore appreciate FUTO experimenting with the licensing model to see if there is a way to get software to the world without allowing profitable companies to freeload on our work.
- futo_hn 2y ago
  If people are curious to learn more about this 'experimental' license we are trying on a few of our projects check out: https://sourcefirst.com https://sourcefirst.com

How about putting it in something that you want to get packaged in Debian or Fedora?

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

https://futo.org/open-source-definition/ https://futo.org/open-source-definition/ Where is that not allowed?

josephcsible 2y ago
Debian and Fedora both only allow FOSS in their repositories.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  Sounds like a Fedora and Debian problem.
  - samatman 2y ago
    Having standards for what software they allow into their package ecosystem is not a problem at all. It's a solution, actually.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
      Right but Fedora or Debian's policies prevent this, not FUTO

JeremyNT 2y ago

Or, for example, F-Droid (more relevant for mobile apps).

futo_hn 2y ago

We are about to package a few of our pieces of software across several repositories. Not sure what issue you think might come up with that? If we are not allowed because of some restriction you can just manually add our repos to your /etc/apt/sources.list which is perfectly normal.

thenewnewguy 2y ago
Fedora license requirements [1]: > A license is allowed if Fedora determines that the license is a free software / open source license. At a high level, the inquiry involves determining whether the license provides software freedom, and (equivalently) making sure that the license does not place burdens on users' exercise of its permissions that are inconsistent with evolving community norms and traditions around what is acceptable in a free software / open source license. The BUSL is on their list of not allowed licenses[2], so I find it highly unlikely your similar "non-commercial use only" license will be permitted. [1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-approval https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-approval [2]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/ https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licen...

em-bee 2y ago

what FUTO and others (eg bruce perens) are trying to figure out is how to make sure that profits made from the software go back to the original developers. in the past linux distributions were needed because distributing software was difficult an the distributions helped get the software to the end users. today distributing software is easy, and if i want my application usable on debian all i need is to create a debian package that i can distribute myself. which means i can use a more restrictive license and prevent big companies from taking advantage of my work for free. it is not clear yet what the right approach here is, but getting my application into debian proper is unlikely to help me make any money, so why bother? i therefore appreciate FUTO experimenting with the licensing model to see if there is a way to get software to the world without allowing profitable companies to freeload on our work.

futo_hn 2y ago
If people are curious to learn more about this 'experimental' license we are trying on a few of our projects check out: https://sourcefirst.com https://sourcefirst.com