Comment on Futo updates their website, removing logos, clarifying micro grants
Railcar8095@lemmy.world 1 day agoIt’s still open source, not sure where this is coming from
Comment on Futo updates their website, removing logos, clarifying micro grants
Railcar8095@lemmy.world 1 day agoIt’s still open source, not sure where this is coming from
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:
Yes, good, I don’t want Google using my code to make billions.
And the not so good:
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”…
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:
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.
Railcar8095@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Immich uses AGPL-3.0 license, so nothing you said is applicable
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).
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.