The license is technically open source (by the strict Stallman definition of “you can see the code”) but certainly not FOSS.
Very disappointing. Louis seems to think that making a restrictive license that’s easy to revoke will help the fight against Play Store clones. He accidentally sent people to a Newpipe clone once and that’s why they should have the right to kill your license at any point in time for any reason or no reason at all.
He accidentally sent people to a Newpipe clone once and that’s why they should have the right to kill your license at any point in time for any reason or no reason at all.
That’s only half the reason, let’s not forget opposition lobbyists abusing unidentified loopholes in his initial R2R drafts, which are very costly to rectify later both time wise and monetary wise, even if at all possible. The mindset of companies screwing with you is probably not something that is easy to shake off, especially encountering it each day fighting serialisation and other rubbish just to repair someones macbook.
While not ideal, I respect his decision taken with the license chosen, even if it’s against the spirit of what most people consider to be open source.
The organisation behind the app, FUTO, wants to take control back from companies and put into the hands of people, and while we can make the argument that FUTO are being hypocritical by keeping the keys to the castle per se, they have delivered an app that puts control back in our hands - removing the need to have a separate youtube, patreon, nebula and soundcloud app, alongside others, where you can follow individual creators easier on the platforms where you financially support them.
It won’t appeal to people who just want to watch YouTube without ads (go NewPipe, Revanced etc…) or staunch FOSS supporters, both of which are seeking other ideals from their media consumption apps of choice.
The kind of people who will be using this app the most right now IMO will be Nebula and Patreon users, this app is like a dream come true compared to the official ones
The GNU definition. I don’t think the majority sticks to their definitions, but there is no “official” definition for it by any measure. On the other hand the internet also struggles to understand that “open source” does not equal “open governance” whenever open source projects are selective in contributions from outside contributors, let alone understanding how the right combination of patents can make an open source project entirely useless for anything more than a hobby project.
While most people follow the Netscape/OSI definition, GNU has basically started the modern open source movement, finding its earliest origins in Stallman being annoyed that he couldn’t add the fonts of his choice to a Xerox printer.
Open source, in its lightest form, means the source is open, with no further implications. Free software (not free as in beer, obviously) is what people expect when they hear “open source”. Free, open-source software (FOSS) is what the OSI has rebranded into “open source”, but the OSI interpretation is not universal. Even with FOSS software, people heavily debate whether or not you’re allowed to sell FOSS software (you actually can, even with GPL, even if you didn’t write most of it, but people get hung up on “free”).
The license is technically open source (by the strict Stallman definition of “you can see the code”) but certainly not FOSS.
Very disappointing. Louis seems to think that making a restrictive license that’s easy to revoke will help the fight against Play Store clones. He accidentally sent people to a Newpipe clone once and that’s why they should have the right to kill your license at any point in time for any reason or no reason at all.
That’s only half the reason, let’s not forget opposition lobbyists abusing unidentified loopholes in his initial R2R drafts, which are very costly to rectify later both time wise and monetary wise, even if at all possible. The mindset of companies screwing with you is probably not something that is easy to shake off, especially encountering it each day fighting serialisation and other rubbish just to repair someones macbook.
While not ideal, I respect his decision taken with the license chosen, even if it’s against the spirit of what most people consider to be open source.
The organisation behind the app, FUTO, wants to take control back from companies and put into the hands of people, and while we can make the argument that FUTO are being hypocritical by keeping the keys to the castle per se, they have delivered an app that puts control back in our hands - removing the need to have a separate youtube, patreon, nebula and soundcloud app, alongside others, where you can follow individual creators easier on the platforms where you financially support them.
It won’t appeal to people who just want to watch YouTube without ads (go NewPipe, Revanced etc…) or staunch FOSS supporters, both of which are seeking other ideals from their media consumption apps of choice.
The kind of people who will be using this app the most right now IMO will be Nebula and Patreon users, this app is like a dream come true compared to the official ones
There is a difference between open source and source available…
Technically open source in what definition? Not by Open Source Initiative definition (https://opensource.org/osd/), not in Wikipedia’s definition (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source)…
Public code on GitLab does not mean open source in the same way public video on YouTube does not mean Creative Commons.
The GNU definition. I don’t think the majority sticks to their definitions, but there is no “official” definition for it by any measure. On the other hand the internet also struggles to understand that “open source” does not equal “open governance” whenever open source projects are selective in contributions from outside contributors, let alone understanding how the right combination of patents can make an open source project entirely useless for anything more than a hobby project.
While most people follow the Netscape/OSI definition, GNU has basically started the modern open source movement, finding its earliest origins in Stallman being annoyed that he couldn’t add the fonts of his choice to a Xerox printer.
Open source, in its lightest form, means the source is open, with no further implications. Free software (not free as in beer, obviously) is what people expect when they hear “open source”. Free, open-source software (FOSS) is what the OSI has rebranded into “open source”, but the OSI interpretation is not universal. Even with FOSS software, people heavily debate whether or not you’re allowed to sell FOSS software (you actually can, even with GPL, even if you didn’t write most of it, but people get hung up on “free”).
By the literal definition of source code that is open.
But what it mean to be open?
Have you heard of “open” culture or “open” standard that is free to use unless we don’t allow you to?