Comment on Futo updates their website, removing logos, clarifying micro grants

• 3abas@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  It’s coming from technical ignorance. There’s little wrong with FUTOs license, here are the limitations:

  First the good:

  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.

  Yes, good, I don’t want Google using my code to make billions.

  And the not so good:

  Notwithstanding the above, you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor in any copy you distribute to others. You may not alter, remove, or obscure any licensing, copyright, or other notices of the Licensor in the software. Any use of the Licensor’s trademarks is subject to applicable law.

  Bad. If I forked and majorly modified the code by significant contribution, I don’t see why my release should have a “donate” link to the original producer and not for my efforts the donor is actually using. This is the same problem the first limitation seeks to address, but from a different angle; namely: monetizing “intellectual property” instead of work.

  Copyleft is cool because it means freedom, but everyone in here fighting because code first prevents them from potentially monetizing the projects they like is completely missing the point of copyleft.

  If you ask them to articulate their concern, I haven’t heard one that isn’t on the lines of “I want to be able to use this code in my paid product”…

  source

  • TootSweet@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    As others have said, you’re changing the topic talking about FUTO’s license in a response to a comment about the AGPL.

    But to continue your thread:

    If you ask them to articulate their concern, I haven’t heard one that isn’t on the lines of “I want to be able to use this code in my paid product”…

    I specifically want anyone to be allowed to use any and all FOSS software I write (and I do write and publish some) commercially, so long as they abide by the terms of the license I choose. (Typically the AGPLv3.)

    If, for instance, a mainstream commercial consumer electronics device incorporated my code into the firmware and because my code is under the AGPLv3, end users had the legal right to demand the means to modify the behavior of their devices to better suit them, I’d be thrilled.

    Plus, if they’re distributing a modified version of my code, that might well include some improvements generally useful for all/most/many users of my project. And if it’s under the AGPLv3, I can demand a copy of the code and incorporate those improvements back upstream into my project so all users of my FOSS project can benefit from it.

    Commercial redistribution is more of a feature than you think. I think you’re missing the point of copyleft.

    source
  • Railcar8095@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Immich uses AGPL-3.0 license, so nothing you said is applicable

    source

    • 3abas@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      I said nothing about immich, the commenter you replied to seems to think because immich is under futo it’ll somehow start collecting your data. If immich was using the futo license, literally nothing will change about how we use it… People are freaking out and inventing ridiculous scenarios and they don’t understand what they’re objecting to (FUTO’s license).

      source

      • Railcar8095@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        The person I’m replying to said nothing about the license, only talked about immich the application. If you want to speak about the futo license ok, but understand just changing the topic isn’t a good way to start a conversation.

        source

        • -> View More Comments