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.
Oh yeah. People believing in community built and owned software, that runs the entire internet, is totally the same thing as racism. 🙄🤣
Just because you don’t agree with the views of open source, doesn’t make them brainwashed.
Because here, you come off as deranged calling others religious fanatics.
EDIT but what’s really fucking funny to me is you call other people religious fanatics and racists. Or at least like them. While you fanatically paste the anti commercial linecse thing like it’s 2012 Facebook again.
Btw, I’m not arguing against this. I believe Open Source™ is valuable and has its place. This post isn’t about Open Source™, despite most people on this thread trying to label the FUTO license as Open Source™ and then getting mad because it’s not actually Open Source™ even though FUTO isn’t claiming to be Open Source™. This is something else.
The main thing I’m thinking about is how to prevent Google, Facebook, etc from extracting huge amounts of wealth from small devs who get nothing in return. The obvious answer has been to release an app as closed source. That blocks out Big Tech AND users. Source Available licenses might be a third option to block out Big Tech, but not regular users.
I never said anything about you or your arguments. I was talking about the analogies the person used to antagonize everyone. And I love how you glossed over all of that to get a little bit hurt at me.
But while your here, your fighting the wrong battles.
Because we are much stronger doing things in the open than we will trying to pick and choose who gets to do what. Even small utilities can contribute to people learning and adapting.
So what if google also benefits? They benefit off of using TCP, SSL, and thousands of standard technology. Should those be charged as well? It’s such a boogy man at the cost of other people learning and benefiting from what you’ve done the same way you benfit from others. It’s not about gatekeeping, it’s about being community.
I’m gonna draw another place I think too much effort is being given to making sure the “correct” people benefit and that’s selective welfare programs. It’s costs shit tons of money to administer programs like food stamps. When if we gave everyone UBI, it wouldn’t matter. Because everyone gets it.
EDIT: In a copy left license, I still own the copyright to my work. So there’s that as well.
But all that on a shelf. I don’t give a fuck what you do with your software. I just don’t want to be called a racists for whatever reason because I believe in community owned software.
Sorry, the reason I glossed over that is because I didn’t want to get involved in that conversation. I was just trying to get the conversation back on topic. I don’t endorse the personal attacks.
Why are we ok with workers not getting paid for their labor? Would you still work at your job if they didn’t pay you? These companies aren’t small shops, they’re huge giants that in some cases are destroying countries. They’ll be ok if they have to share a tiny fraction of their obscene wealth with regular people.
That’s a great question. I’m not really sure actually. Btw, I don’t think Open Source™ should go away. I do think there could be a middle ground though. There should be more nuance than just 0% give away or 100% give away.
I think you may be confusing Source Available with Closed Source. Source Available licenses don’t stop regular people from creating a community, contributing, learning, adapting, improving software. They do stop companies from making money off of your work though.
I’m not confusing the two. If I copy the “source available” and accidently remember it in a “commercial” product, I’m technically hooped. It’s considered derivative work and therefore I’m in violation of the license. Regardless if I’m a simple app dev or Google.
Also, like I said a few times now. I done own the code I contribute. Technically meaning if you contribute code, and use that snippet in a commercial context, again, your in violation of the license.
This is why copy left is the defacto standard. The author of the code retains copywrite ownership of it.
Your still resolving solved problems.
Ooooh, wait. I think I understood one of your points better now…
So, I think you’re saying, what if you contribute some code to a source available project, maybe some boilerplate that’s the same everywhere, and then you use that same contribution in a commercial product? Then you’d be in violation of the source available license? Is that what you’re saying?
This seems like a good reason NOT to contribute to a source available project, which is totally fine. Whereas this is possible with GPL if you 100% own the code and didn’t sign a CLA.
However, not all projects are “I want everyone to pitch in and I want everyone to own the project.” There are lots of projects where 1 dude or 1 company want to retain ownership of their app and don’t need or want outside contributors. Normally, they’d probably just be closed source—maybe they might consider being source available.
(Just as long as they don’t pretend to be Open Source™, in which case fuck them.)
What’s the point of source available if I’m never allowed to derive value from it?
FUTO specifically allows you to derive value from a project like this:
Yes, it’s a different set of value than Open Source™ gives you. Again, they’re not claiming to provide the same value as Open Source™. (They’re also not trying to replace Open Source™.) Yes, it’s not the value that you want. Yes, that’s by design.
Do you also think, what’s the point of Google Search, Windows, WhatsApp, YouTube, Instagram, etc if you can’t derive any “value” from it, where “value” means Open Source™ value? Those apps are still insanely valuable to users, even if they don’t get Open Source™ value from them.
So the first line of what you quite says you can’t.
I’m a professional developer. If I learn and use it in my job, I’m in violation of the licese.
What I mean by value is the ability to learn and use it as you wish. Without worry of if your going against a license.