- YouTube
www.youtube.com
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.

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.

  • poVoq@slrpnk.net
    22·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • paequ2OPEnglish
      7·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • poVoq@slrpnk.net
        8·
        2 days ago

        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.