- YouTube
www.youtube.com
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

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.

  • qweertz (they/she)
    8·
    5 days ago

    Every time this licenses comes up I have to repeat myself: It’s source-available proprietary (free)ware; “source first” is “open source washing” at it’s finest

    From an old comment of mine:

    […] It strips you of the options the four essential freedoms provide.

    IMO [“but protecting muh devs and making it financially viable as a for-profit”] is not rly an argument. Libre software is free as in freedom and not necessarily free as in beer. You could license it under the (A)GPL, charge for downloads in the Play store or for compiled binaries on ur website and ask for donations on F-Droid.

    You could even do a freemium version where some features are locked in the binaries you distribute and need a license from ur website or smth (for those who don’t want to use Google Play). (iirc SD Maid 2/SE does this)

    sauce

    E.g.: AFAIK the QT Framework (which I don’t particularly like) is dual licensed, making it both Foss that ppl have to contribute back to and viable as a for-profit

    • paequ2@lemmy.todayOP
      1·
      2 days ago

      open source washing

      I definitely agree with you on this IF the company is claiming to be Open Source™, but then uses a source available license.

      However, FUTO is NOT claiming to be Open Source™.

      I think about it this way: either a business releases the app as close source and users can’t see anything OR the app is released as source available and users can see what’s going on. Contributions are not expected and may not even be allowed. Open Source™ wouldn’t even be considered as an option.

    • Jiří Král@discuss.tchncs.de
      1·
      4 days ago

      You could license it under the (A)GPL, charge for downloads in the Play store or for compiled binaries on ur website and ask for donations on F-Droid.

      You could even do a freemium version where some features are locked in the binaries you distribute and need a license from ur website or smth (for those who don’t want to use Google Play). (iirc SD Maid 2/SE does this)

      Someone else could just compile the app themselves, unlock all premium features and distribute it to play store without violating the license?