4 ms·

Indeed, it is "Source First" license, dev(s) reasoning here: https://futo.org/about/futo-statement-on-opensource/ https://futo.org/about/futo-statement-on-opens

• globular-toast 2y ago
  They make a very good case against corporate-friendly licences like MIT/BSD, which I definitely agree with, but say nothing about why they don't use AGPL. Honestly I think the problem with A/GPL is that they are considered "uncool". You just can't use them, because reasons. Who decides what is cool? That's right, the marketing departments of huge corporations...
  • xmcqdpt2 2y ago
    AGPL would still allow a third party to fork their code and create a commercial product out of it, which is what they are opposed to. The AGPL only requires that the host also provides their code.
    • globular-toast 2y ago
      No, it also requires that it's licensed under the AGPL, meaning the users get free software.
      • xmcqdpt2 2y ago
        Right yes, provide their code licensed under AGPL, it's an important distinction, thanks. What it doesn't ban people from doing is selling a service, which is different from their license that allows only non-commercial uses.