- 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.

  • paequ2OPEnglish
    5·
    2 days ago

    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”.

    • litchralee@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      2 days ago

      To be abundantly clear, “free software” (aka free as in speech) and “open source” are understood as two different categories, and when software falls into both, would be called Free and Open Source (FOSS).

      Wikipedia has this to say:

      FOSS stands for “Free and Open Source Software”. There is no one universally agreed-upon definition of FOSS software and various groups maintain approved lists of licenses. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is one such organization keeping a list of open-source licenses.[1] The Free Software Foundation (FSF) maintains a list of what it considers free.[2] FSF’s free software and OSI’s open-source licenses together are called FOSS licenses. There are licenses accepted by the OSI which are not free as per the Free Software Definition. The Open Source Definition allows for further restrictions like price, type of contribution and origin of the contribution

      • paequ2OPEnglish
        1·
        2 days ago

        Ah, 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.