FUTO Takes A New Stance On Open Source
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 06. 2024
- Last week I made a video on FUTO, that organization that Louis Rossmann is involved in and had a lot of critiques with how they using the term, but to my pleasant surprise they've shifted into a much more positive direction
==========Support The Channel==========
► Patreon: brodierobertson.xyz/patreon
► Paypal: brodierobertson.xyz/paypal
► Liberapay: brodierobertson.xyz/liberapay
► Amazon USA: brodierobertson.xyz/amazonusa
==========Resources==========
First Video: • FUTO Does Not Support ...
Futo Stance: futo.org/about/futo-statement...
Futo Open Source Definition: futo.org/open-source-definition/
=========Video Platforms==========
🎥 Odysee: brodierobertson.xyz/odysee
🎥 Podcast: techovertea.xyz/youtube
🎮 Gaming: brodierobertson.xyz/gaming
==========Social Media==========
🎤 Discord: brodierobertson.xyz/discord
🐦 Twitter: brodierobertson.xyz/twitter
🌐 Mastodon: brodierobertson.xyz/mastodon
🖥️ GitHub: brodierobertson.xyz/github
==========Credits==========
🎨 Channel Art:
Profile Picture:
/ supercozman_draws
#OpenSource #Futo #FOSS #Linux
🎵 Ending music
Track: Debris & Jonth - Game Time [NCS Release]
Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds.
Watch: • Debris & Jonth - Game ...
Free Download / Stream: ncs.io/GameTime
DISCLOSURE: Wherever possible I use referral links, which means if you click one of the links in this video or description and make a purchase I may receive a small commission or other compensation. - Věda a technologie
Oh I forgot to include Louis' reply from the last video so here it is
Some thoughts, off the top of my head. Here is a question for you, since I've tried to push the ball forward with the license thing for a year (particularly with getting the horible rugpull part removed from the dumpster fire that was the year-long "temporary" license)
If we referred to this license as "source first" rather than "open source", how would you feel about that? I'd like to give some history as to why this was referred to the way it was, the organization's thoughts, my personal thoughts, and the direction we'd like to move in into the future.
“Open source” has a particular meaning to the community, and suggested we call it “source available” instead. Here’s why we haven’t done that:
“Source available” commonly means you can’t redistribute modified versions, or unmodified versions, of the software. This doesn’t apply to FUTO software.
“Source available” commonly means you can’t create derivative works, or modified versions. This does not apply to our software.
“Source available” commonly means that you must pay to see the source code. This does not apply to our software.
“Source available” commonly means that software can only be used within a specific organization, but not be available outside of that organization. This does not apply to our software.
Thus, FUTO called these projects open source. FUTO didn’t care about OSI’s definition, and thought it arrogant of an organization that has confidential charter members and Microsoft as a sponsor to define it. I also believe they haven't done much to prevent the spread of closed source, subscription based, spyware from becoming the norm. People use google apps over nextcloud, and adobe premiere over kdenlive for a reason. google calendar works, and adobe premiere allows me to use a compressor plugin that actually allows me to see a visual representation of gain reduction. While open source software runs the server world & the internet, just using the linux kernel & apache without a doubt; in the world of niche professional software, or consumer software... I think it's lost very badly.
“Source available” is commonly understood to encompass projects with far more restrictive terms than our software.
“Open source” is commonly understood to have no financial limitations on one’s ability to use the software commercially.
Neither one of the community’s definitions fully fits what we’re doing. Using either of them is bad. The former is a disservice to us, and the latter is a disservice to you. A fair compromise, I think, would be making our own term.
“Source first” would describe our software, and fit our values;
Here’s where source first & our values align with the community’s definition of open source:
1. Our licenses allow users to see source code of all of our software.
2. Our licenses ensure that you can modify the source code for your own use, and redistribute it.
3. Our licenses ensure that our software is not limited to use by a particular organization.
4. Our principles demand that any client we release that requires a server, also releases the server software under principles as free as the client software.
5. Our software avoids integration of crypto shitcoin scams.
6. Our software rejects “the customer is the product” as a business model.
Here’s where source first & our values part ways with the community’s definition of open source:
1. We believe in a programmer’s ability to have the legal right to demand financial compensation for commercial use of their code. It's not enough for a programmer to have the ask for money politely; we want them to have the legal right to demand commercial entities pay. ffmpeg getting a few programmers for google summer of code, while the backbone of youtube is key to them bringing in 31 billion dollars a year isn't a fair exchange of value. Under all current open source licenses, they can ask for money, but they can't demand money.
2. We believe that community ownership of software has not led to consumer-facing-software that beats closed source alternatives, and that this has not, and will not, be a winning model.
I think the community likes what we’re doing. They like that we fund consumer-facing software projects like Immich that seek to beat google photos & iCloud. They like that we’ve donated millions to non-profits like Signal, Tor, Repair Preservation Group, GrapheneOS, MicroG, Mobility Independence Foundaiton, and many other organizations that use traditional, OSI-compliant license, that fit the community's definition of open source.
They don’t like that we’ve used the term open source. Technically, legally, nobody “owns” that term. OSI doesn’t own that term. So we used it; but culturally, the community own that term. Frankly, as I've told my boss personally many times, you can be technically correct, and still be a complete dickhead. You're not going against OSI when you do this; you're going against the community.
I don't have it in me to give you all some adobe crisis management blog post bullshit, so I'll put my thoughts here:
I've had an idea of what open source meant since I first bought & installed Suse Linux professional in 2002. I had no idea what OSI was, or how they defined software, or what they even did until i started working here. While working here, I've made my stance unequivocally clear; I don't think it makes sense to have all of this good will created by having the fellowship programs we have, donating millions to open source that ARE MIT/Apache/AGPL/GPL licensed, funding projects internally that kick ass & use AGPL licenses for some; all to lose it over what you call your licenses. Being technically correct has, and always will, in the public eye, be less important than being culturally correct & taking action that does not cause the community to see us all as dickheads.
I'd like to advocate internally for that to change, without compromising our values, or the community's.
This is all an experiment; at the end, it comes down to this. If we create software that doesn’t abuse the public; will people pay for it? Will programmers quit working for google, apple, facebook, amazon, and microsoft; and decide to work on GOOD software instead? Because they believe they can actually make a living from it?
We don't see people doing that right now for consumer software. For many pieces, there isn't even an option to not be abused by traditional closed souce/cloud bullshit, and that sucks. Someone has to go first and give this a shot, to even have a chance of success, prior to others giving it a go. If we fund that software to the tune of millions of dollars per year, in order to make it great under the terms we've created; will people support it financially? If we can demonstrate that they WILL, can we get more programmers to change their habits? That is FUTO's goal.
It'll include stumbles along the way. I believe this was one of them, that can be addressed, improved, & fixed along the way.
Thoughts, as always, appreciated.
lol everyone was saying it was just on your monitor but I was right you actually forgot to put it on screen
OSI's terminology of libre-sourced software needs to adapt to what is now, and has been for a while, very commonly called free and open source software (FOSS) or less commonly Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS). I thought on this when your last video was released; FUTO's license is technically open source. The source is open to anyone that would like to use it but it cannot be used without limitation; there are limitations on its use. The software is therefore open source, but not free and open source.
This is just corporate doublespeak from someone who hates OSI, and the actual word choice makes that quite obvious of you've read a few of these. Rossman's involvement is the only reason I have some hope we will see any change at all.
@@matthewlwood uh no, FOSS/FLOSS is a almagation of free software and open source software. There's a technical difference between the two: on focuses on the rights of the user, the other focuses on the rights of companies. But neither are viable if one would like to sell their software. Source first or fair source software is a third type xd
This is informative and really fortunate.
Now everyone likes FUTA
🤨
🤮
"You might think I'm kinda crass, but baby you can kiss my ass!" --Ken Ashcorp
hell yeah
I've always like futa
"OSI approved licenses fail to protect developers"... yes because that is not the goal of free software / open source software.
the goal has never been protecting the developers, the goal has always been protecting the users from the excesses of the developers.
Yeah now that you say it, that's really true isn't it. And that is good as a counterbalance to closed-source software monopolies, which at the time I think was literally all there was... but now that the space has opened up, maybe it turns out that we DO need some ways to protect the developers too. Then maybe Open Source really was a bit too far, we're noticing that now, and finding a healthy middle ground that protects consumers from abusive developers while also protecting developers from abusive consumers. I really hope that's what ends up happening.
If you don't feel developers have rights then you will end up loosing your rights as a user. When devs realize that most users don't give a damn how much time they put into providing the the software you use they will make the choice to put themselves and there families first.
@@ilonachanthis exactly!
This is the esoteric nerd drama that I needed.
I mean it's not really drama. FUTO got some criticism and immediately saw the error in what they were doing and are attempting to fix it in a reasonable manner.
It's not esoteric, nor is it drama. This is what copyright/trademark disputes look like, sometimes even in court. Like it or not, you are affected by these legal issues.
@@orbatos Drama is subjective, but I'm not going to budge on this being esoteric. It's not esoteric to YOU because you're part of the small, special-interest group. Law is also esoteric, by the way, that's why we hire lawyers.
@@ghosthunter0950 I wouldn't call the reaction immediate. I had been bringing this up since the initial release of Harbor and Greyjey with its temp license like 5 months ago.
They changed that temp license recently, and the license they switched too also wasn't open source. Prompting Brodie's video.
It sounds like the issue was that their founder and CEO Eron Wolf hates the OSI and wanted to reject their definition of open source, not realizing that that definition is relied upon by A lot of regular people. Once enough individual users started pointing out how lame this is they realized there mistake and backpedaled.
As someone that had been failing to make these points among A small few others. I was PUMPED to see Brodie's video, and after he saw it, it looks like he finally understood.
Some of these anecdotes are my experience and some are borrowed from louis, like the stuff on Eron's perspective which I do not know myself.
Anyway I too look forward to what FUTO does in the future!
@@orbatos They aren't in this case, but I think you're aware of that and just speaking generally. If you aren't, the issue here is that the OSI tried to get a trademark on Open Source, and it was found to have been too generic a term to trademark despite the fact that 1) They were f**king morons and 2) the "generic term" has a de facto definition recognized within the industry whether some asshat without a clue recognizes the truth of that or not. Open Source IS defined. It is NOT genericized. While brand names like bandaid and q-tip and kleenex are pretty damned closed to generic while remaining just short of it due to their common usage to describe things that are not those brands but are similar products, Open Source is one whose common usage is exactly limited to the intended trademark owner's brand.
In other words, Open Source not being a trademark is an ERROR, and pretty much everyone in this space knows that. And a bunch of us have a stake in defending that stake, with the help of the legal system or in spite of it.
But no, there's not much drama here. We all told FUTO they made a mistake here, and they heard us. Not every instance of negative feedback results in "drama": "That term has a definition. you know what it is, and it's important. Please don't try to muddy it." "Oh, okay, we see that's important not to do. But this other term doesn't work either. How about this new term?" "Yeah that's cool." See? No drama. 🙂
My attitude towards FUTO changed 180 degrees. Bravo to them for listening to community feedback.
Really?
They did damage control on a blatantly dishonest decision - that they knew was dishonest when they did it - and you think they have actually changed? Interesting.
This is NOT that. Please work on your media literacy, this is standardised corporate doublespeak for "whoops, that was all totally a joke guys". It wasn't a joke, they meant what they said.
@@orbatosI think you might need to read up on this. I very much believe this is an accurate response and adjustment according to the communities concerns. They have not changed their values and are still pushing for the same goals. They also explained why they used the term they did to begin with and why they just didn't make up a new one immediately.
All in all I think this might have been planned out in some way. Making a dunk on OSI that is unclear enough to garner actual attention and then coining a new model to make people aware of it. That is pure speculation though.
@@EpiX0R No wonder you believe them, you use corporate-speak.
@@EpiX0R Read up on what exactly? You are speculating, and frankly your willingness to give a company leeway you wouldn't grant to an individual is bizarre. Maybe I just have more experience with corporate culture than you, but this is basic pr stuff that you should always view critically.
Source First, great! That is all we asked for, call it something else and we are good!
I fully understand the intention, and hope they will succeed with their endeavor of stopping enshittification of applications that are not commercially viable with FOSS.
I see where you're coming from but it's just going to fracture the community to some extent and drive some people away in favor of the well-established foothold that "open-source" has as a positively-connotated concept.
Source first is just going to be some weird back-alley term people who are otherwise exactly looking for FUTO's type of content are going to disregard.
@@cameronmoore136yeah, “source first” sounds like some weasely corporate speak Id hear on Succession lol.
It doesn’t even make sense. If I heard that term without context, I have no idea what it means. Open source, source available, etc literally describe the situation.
@@cameronmoore136 The term could be better but I'm not sure what it would be. But repurposing an existing term is unfair to it, and honestly a new term might be in their favor anyways. It could be doing them a disservice to be lumped in as just any other open source project, when they're trying to do something new (or are they not?). I think the goal would be to have "source" in the name, otherwise a lot of people wouldn't know what "fair-code" or whatever is.
@@Aeroxima Those are all certainly fair points.
0:40
> "[Louis Rossman's comment] is on the screen right now"
> isn't on the screen
On his screen right now
on the screen he's looking at
Could a case be made that there's an issue with the use of the word "the" when saying "the screen"?
🙃
@@alexanded2383 Then Brodie miscommunicated, it can be easily misconstrued to be mean he is flashing the comment lmao.
He forgot it, so it's in the pinned comment
I'm a developer and I'm really glad the guys at FUTO posted this. Being used to all the garbage nonsense blog posts corporations put out it is a really great breath of fresh air to see a post actually identify and fix the problem.
Of course nothing is perfect, there is probably some changes that could be made to the post but it is still light-years better at communicating their intents and actions than any other corporate slop post.
I'm happy FUTO is working for this. I believe in supporting the PEOPLE who develop the software or games you enjoy. There needs to be an understanding of what deserves your money, this sense have been lost over the generations and is something I've slowly been working at building up. I very much hope for FUTOs vision of this come true, both as a developer and as a general consumer.
Thanks for covering all you do Brodie, I love your channel. Haven't been here for very long but I love your work!
0:41 The comment is missing
No, Brodie had it on the Ubuntu VM at the end of the previous video... And we all know what Brodie does to that Ubuntu VM.
@@CMDRSweeper Does it involve money?
I think the issue of open source software funding is primarily an engineering one. I can totally understand (and support!) what FUTO is trying to do, i.e. creating a network-effect license to inject money through whatever system possible into open source projects. However, that really only covers applications and ignores libraries. If we want to fund the _entire_ open source community, I think there needs to be a platform that fractionally distributes a fixed monthly sum across all projects you use _including their dependencies_ where the distribution of money for any given project and its deps is decided via community consensus.
Send this as feedback to the devs of Ko-Fi - I feel like it’s the sort of thing they’d get on board with!
Yeah, almost any long-term project with many users will have a large number of contributors from many different places, some of whom have strong disagreements with each other. The original creator(s) may not even be around any more. An open-source license and fund distribution scheme need to gracefully handle this common type of situation.
That's a pretty good response, I like their attitude and their willingness to take criticism and feedback. I've known about FUTO for a while now, but now I'm actually interested to follow their work.
This whole comment has been written with Futo Voice Input. I use the software every day and I have paid for it. Worth more than every penny I spent.
Do you use it as an accessibility thing, or just for convenience?
@@Cris-bj7ee Hey Cris, I use it on for convenience. I do have to double check what it writes out. However, it has lowered my imaginary barrier to communication with others.
1. That didn't sound like satire, that just sounded like disagreement.
2. I'm looking forward to what these terms look like when the dust settles for applications beyond FUTO itself. I'm in a community that often shares small programs and data, and is particularly vulnerable in this AI bubble. Hell, not even just from companies, we had a recent incident of someone trying to create literal, "leader is the second coming of Jesus", cult propaganda with community resources. We could really use a set of terms to restrict bad actors without turning away good faith users.
I need more details about that cult.
dafak... Please elaborate on the second point
Can you share more details when you say AI bubble regarding the specific concerns you have?
who gets to decide who is a "bad actor"?
I believe OS should sidestep this (demonstrably fallible) question and just be available to all. Open, if you will.
I'm a little surprised to realize that I have actually paid for a Linux distro in the past. It was a 4 CD set of the November 1998 release of Slackware. Picked it up at Future Shop in a discount bin on boxing day. It's what started me on Linux.
Hehe, I remember Future Shop!
How much did it cost?
The GPL has always allowed paying for media with Linux on it, as long as the source code is available online. All that must be available gratis is online access to the source code. So, selling compiled binaries on optical or magnetic media is perfectly fine.
@@loyeyoung1068 actually the gpl doesn't state how you should distribute the source code, it only requires them to providde any way to a customer to get access to the source code and be free modify and redistribute it, you can make the source available only if the customer climbs the mount everest and finds the hidden key for a box containing laser disks with the software. This would still comply with the gpl, but ppl generally just put it online for free because it's easier and cheaper
I decided to become a monthly sponsor of elementaryOS a few years ago and recently did the math-at this point I've paid about *twice as much* for my Linux distro as I would have for a full-price Windows Pro license.
To be fair, I use elementary on two systems and their Pantheon DE on two others, so I'm still coming out ahead. 😅
i am a dev of 27 years of coding, and the problem is not that we are not pay, but the system it self, we got the resource and the tech now, to make the world a better place, with no money or with a UBI so high that if we want to do this full time, it is fine.
we should fix the real problem, and make any thing else free of cost too, the open source world is not perfect, but it is a better model then 58% of American not being able to pay for a 100$ extra bill.
but no lets put all of the resources in a few rich man, and let anyone else beg (include devs) for a little money.
the system is broken, and we know what we should do with borken stuff.
My problem with Futo (and others in the "I like open source but I don't like other people's business models" mindset), is that they're not about building an open source ("shared source", whatever you want to call it) ecosystem. When they say "we want developers to be able to earn money doing open source", they don't mean "our open source software", they want to setup a B2C business where customers are not empowered to create their own businesses in the same ecosystem. "We want you to make money from open source", they say, "but not this use case - I staked and it's mine, go away".
In my job (working for a small company) I created a library for building web services - not standalone, but based on another open source project. I released it as open source and I know other developers in other small companies use it as part of their commercial products - that is an ecosystem that everyone benefits from - in the "making money from open source" sense.
This is an interesting argument. The primary goal was to demonstrate that it was possible to make money at it, in the hopes of other programmers quitting their jobs. Eron is massively disappointed that other programmers stay at their shit job working for a shit company making abusive software. He wants them to think they can quit and start their own business themselves.
He regularly says that even he can't fund everything. that has to come from people seeing & believing that they can actually make money off of not abusing people. He does admit this is a moonshot, and an experiment, but a worthwhile one to try in his belief.
One large problem is that people don't pay for stuff they can use for free - this is already difficult to deal with. Libraries are even more difficult because an end user who is not fully savvy often has no idea what libraries the program is even USING!
How do you think funding libraries for projects that many of the projects' customers aren't aware exist should be handled?
@@rossmanngroup unfortunately, funding non-customer-facing stuff falls into just these 3 options:
1. No. You're that single developer from Finland that is - in your free time - in charge of this small block that everyone relies on.
2. Stallman style - big companies pay employees to co-operate on free software to the benefit of the ecosystem. This is what me and most of the world - including those "shit companies that make abusive software" - do.
3. Non-profit organisations that get donations and select and fund "important" projects (see Open Source Collective). If it's not immediately clear the downside here - they can't fund everything, some committee chooses who gets the money and unless you're already "too important to fail" you won't qualify (and possibly not even then).
IMHO option 2 is that only one that is close to being sustainable.
It's just proprietary software, but greenwashed to use open terminology. At least they aren't calling it FOSS now, but it's a small win.
@rossmanngroup unfortunately, funding non-customer-facing stuff falls into just these 3 options:
1. No. You're that single developer from Finland that is - in your free time - in charge of this small block that everyone relies on.
2. Stallman style - big companies pay employees to co-operate on free software to the benefit of the ecosystem. This is what me and most of the world - including those "shוt companies that make abusive software" - do.
3. Non-profit organisations that get donations and select and fund "important" projects (see Open Source Collective). If it's not immediately clear the downside here - they can't fund everything, some committee chooses who gets the money and unless you're already "too important to fail" you won't qualify (and possibly not even then).
IMHO option 2 is that only one that is close to being sustainable.
@@rossmanngroup unfortunately, funding non-customer-facing stuff falls into just these 3 options:
1. No. You're that single developer from Finland that is - in your free time - in charge of this small block that everyone relies on.
Yeah, if that really was meant to be satire then I have to point to Poe's law. But I'm glad things got cleared up and we can just chalk it up to a bit of miscommunication, and move on
There's a reason legal documents start with defining the terms they use. Example: "by ABC we mean this, by DEF we mean that, by XYZ we mean these", but much more verbose and unambiguous
this "draw the rest of the fucking owl" shirt is fire
"if you start a project [...] you are free to choose your own license"
This statement is true if you do not plan to use any dependencies or libraries. I think people underestimate how viral some licenses are.
Sure that is fair but wasn't really my main point
it depends how you use those libraries, with dynamic linking i think the license has no say over your code whatsoever. It becomes an issue with static linking or using source files directly.
@@ChrisWijtmans assuming you're referring to the GPL, it's clearly defined. I believe what you're referring to is the "Standard interface" clause, reserved for a 3rd-party interface that is utilized INSTEAD of linking. "Dynamic linking" nearly always falls under the "intimate data communication" clause and is subject to license pollution. It is very important that a developer understands this.
Some projects add exceptions to this (such as Java's classpath exception), but this is a gray area.
@@tresf The license can say there whatever it wants but its legal whatever it says. No license, EULA nor contract can be above the law.
This is why most libraries that use one of the FSF licenses use either the LGPL or GPL with classpath exception.
Parody is only effective when more than like 4 people can even tell that it's parody
It is also a very lazy way to retcon bad acts. It just shows that they were not pretending to be stupid, they actually are stupid.
Comment missing at 0:41 xD
I don't have a problem with paying for software.... I have a problem with subscriptions and "the cloud".
I feel like the FUTO people need to realise that not everybody feels exploited under the OSI rules. Yes, large user facing software can struggle to make ends meet under these licences, but all my projects are under MIT licences because I made them to learn, and I feel like it's just right to give what I've learned back to everyone. I don't want money for this, I don't want this to be my job.
That doesn't mean I won't consider whatever they are cooking when I want to start a new massive project that I foresee will take a lot of my time and work, but licences under OSI definition have their place and it's not all some big conspiracy from Microsoft to suck free code from our veins. The term should not be muddled.
I also find it kinda silly to say "The OSI doesn't get to define open-source is. We are going to make our own term and trademark it, and absolutely define what it means." I realise there is a difference, since the term OSS was used before the OSI, but still.
This. They don't need to create an imaginary beef with the OSI just because they have a definition of the term open-source software. To the contrary, the whole software development environment overall agrees with their definition more or less.
My point was that I didn't even know what OSI was until a month or two ago. I think tons of people who think open source means _"XYZ"_ have never heard of the OSI. When we use a definition that is different from theirs, we're not opposing OSI - we're opposing the community of people who buy our software. That didn't make any sense.
I have no issue paying a little bit for software, as long as it's not a subscription model.
this is the way
1 time purchase all the way baby!
@@drewo.127 Wondershare tried to renege on lifetime subscriptions, but got so much backlash that they decided to let them have either their lifetime subscription or free Filmstocks stuff, but you had to contact them about it by a certain date to get it, so kept my lifetime subscription going. Downside is their web-based editor has a storage limit so that they can sell you more storage, so I keep a Windows installation around mostly for that.
Aseprite moved from open source to source available. You can buy it, or download the source code and compile it for personal use. And they say this ""if someone doesn’t want to (or just cannot) pay for your work, she/he is not a customer. And in that case he/she will try to find other ways to get the program. You just have to give up. Personally I think that sharing source code is like declaring that explicitly: “If you cannot afford it, you might try to compile the program and use it anyway until you can pay for it or feel that worth it.”"
I think its quite accurate.
You can just use they instead of he/she
@@Ornateluna "they" is plural
@@cyberlemmingasaservice7740singular they was in use even in the times of shakespeare
@@cyberlemmingasaservice7740no it’s not. Even when not referring to any gender stuff at all, people have used the word ‘they’ referring to a singular person for a very long time. It’s normal and I’m sure you have done it without noticing.
@@Ornateluna It's a quote, tell it to Aseprite. I am not gonna edit pronouns in a quote.
The problem with the whole idea I feel, is that the only software that actually has a chance of getting any funding that way in the first place is user facing projects. It's all good and well if some web or application developer can charge money for their app they sells in a store, but those apps are based on a gigantic stack of libraries and maintainer work that is simply not visible to the end user because there is no direct contact.
So in the end, even if this works, it will suffer from the very same problem all those enterprise software suffers, a well funded application that is built on a foundation of sand.
Excellent video 👍 Thank you 💜
No. Right to fork is absolutely essential for software freedom. Rogue maintainers happen regardless of funding; multiple cases have been covered on this channel.
In fact, I'm not sure why a license that restricts commercial use to a designated proprietor shouldn't be considered "proprietary".
I'm not clear on the legal complications, but separately distributed patches seem likely to become the FUTO-ware version of forks.
At any rate, stuff like "CC BY-NC" is considered non-proprietary, despite being non-libre. It should be considered a dubious license by anyone starting a new software project, but it's existence in the open-source community is justified, albeit barely. In particular, it's justified for "non-essential" (think "Photoshop and GIMP competitors") software that's useful for non-commercial purposes (e.g. your Christmas cards, or a graphic design course's final project), but _also_ useful for profit-making purposes that the developer(s) want some share of financial benefit from. I'm aware that some people object to paying for software, but that doesn't make it bad, wrong, or any other perjorative.
What they are doing is like a wolf wearing a lion costume and saying "See? I am not a wolf."
@@absalomdraconis > separately distributed patches
Yes; that is already an established practice with decidedly proprietary software, e.g. Minecraft.
I love the idea of "You make program I use, I pay for program, the end".
My... "Gripe" with that or at least I understand the contention point for it... is that you pay 5 dollars for this, 5 for that, 15 for this, 15 for that. And at the end of the month (in a hypothetical universe because this is just an example) you end up with 300 dollars worth of costs for the software you'll be using. And some will be pay for it once, others will be subscriptions and others will be a middle where you pay for it once as long as you "use that license" which is something I personally don't like because it feels like a devious version of a subscription that is not billed monthly, but it is billed "each time for each device you might want it in".
So far the only things we plan to have a subscription for are cloud services. However, for any product we produce a _client_ for, we must also offer you the *server* for. Cloud is optional.
Cloud services are for my stepmom who thinks a hard drive is traveling through I-10W in new mexico rather than something measured in bytes.
For the rest, you can buy the client, and the server, and use it yourself.
Or, you can buy it and use the infinite free trial. We'll never know.***
***You'll know though. You'll know.
This is history in the making. I look forward to evaluating this license.
They should of used that 'sexy' pic of Stallman to let us know it was parody.
To the question of what software do I support I can say I support Krita. They offer additional brush, texture and tutorial content for sale which I've gotten so much use out of.
*should have
That nickname correlates with that use of grammar =D
Great comment otherwise
I'm using the FUTO keyboard right now, and it works really well. I'm glad FUTO has reversed their stance
This is a big part of the point I made.
I fkng hated gboard. I did a video on it sucking up all of my data in 2019. It creeped me out. I logged into my acct and poked around one day and found ten year old arguments with an ex girlfriend there. Just weird.
The person who made that software found the fellowship through a video I did. I advocated for him to be one of the accepted ones. and then he made this.
is it possible that person might have not even emailed because they read something from someone who watched something who knew someone who read something about how we suck, because of this? yes.
is that worth whatever we get from waging a war on a word because we believe we have the right definition? no.
it is very likely that this is a selfish stance to take. my job has to do with the reputation of the business, and my job is to directly find engineers and developers for projects. I want them to think the best of us as humanly possible to cast the widest net as possible. I do believe in the moral/ethical reason of using the community term. However, put that aside for a moment completely, from a utilitarian perspective... even if we were 100% correct....... who cares?
You can be 100% right, and 100% fired,all at the same time. Simply owning a business doesn't preclude you from being fired by the people who matter. Your customers, your users, when they perceive that you do not respect them.
I feel like paying for software will never be the same again. Software vendors are incentivized to build their stuff as a subscription service because it’s just so damn profitable. Users are nowadays used to apps being free because apparently an app is less complex than desktop software (??? I really don’t understand the sentiment why people really think apps should be free but are okay with paying for desktop apps lol).
I also really hope the sentiment around open source is going to change a bit. At my work we obviously use a metric ton of open source components (libraries and databases mostly). Two of the libraries are abandoned, but we use them for basically every frontend and will continue to do so. I was like: hey, let’s write the dev of these libraries and ask him if he would like us to take over the maintenance for this thing, we have to maintain it either way and this way everybody can profit a little bit. This idea was abandoned super super fast. We now have an internal fork of the repository and the original projects are still abandoned😢
I think that we are screwed because people value convenience over freedom, sovereignty, privacy, and security. I also think we are screwed because society chose to give away their privacy en-masse in exchange for a gigabyte of storage & large attachments when gmail came out in 2004.
We're like the adult versions of hansel & gretel.
I want to see what happens with this.
Not a developer, but what i like about this approach is that it's functionality almost the same for the end-user. You still get all the benefits of openly available code (insurance of privacy, community contribution, etc.) while not letting the developers get screwed over.
I think there is some risk around forking. A successful fork can have limitations on raising funds.
@@gusvanwes6192 In the existing GrayJay license, it says you can't remove their payment links, or add others. I think the idea will be that you can't get around the legal requirement/ability for certain people to pay by forking. It's just a matter of structuring the license correctly.
@@gusvanwes6192: A necessary evil, as the alternative allows forks that just exist to leech off an existing code base without doing any real development on it. I think that better approaches can be taken (maybe a 5 year sunset provision on any individual version of the source?), but I haven't _studied_ the subject, and barring the laziest-possible abuse requires _some_ restriction.
I think what Aseprite did was honestly pretty good. They were open source, now they're source available. If you can compile it yourself, that's great, otherwise, you need to pay to get it precompiled.
What you're calling "extorting ordinary users into paying more for blueprints users won't understand" is actually "source first, no service until you completely understand the code you paid for" model of licensing so customers don't own the product, but rather a license to the code everyone is entitled to have when they purchase our products because we believe in total transparency and zero tolerance for companies changing their TOS arbitrarily for any or for no reason.
How strange that they cry so much, there are already several licenses with distribution restrictions that are considered FOSS, it seems perfect to me that they do it and I hope it goes well for them
Plus, there are all the Creative Commons licenses that allow for the same restrictions FUTO want -- non-commercial, attribution required, etc. Personally, I think Rossman hit the nail on the fucking HEAD when he pointed out that the OSI is owned, operated by and run for corporate interests -- that's the only thing that adequately explains the astroturfed shitstorm being kicked up about FUTO's use of "Open Source".
@@poissonpuerile8897 I don't believe it's astroturfed. I've been interested in free and open source software for probably 20 years. The OSI definition of Open Source is all I've ever known. One of the most important things, I think, is that "open source" has always been interchangeable with "free software".
Coming along and creating a new definition of open source would make it that much more difficult to tell what is actually open source, particularly for non-developers. And it we were to accept what FUTO had put, that open source simply means the source code is available, then soon we would have all sorts of software with completely restrictive licenses advertising as open source, just because they let people view the source code, while having next to no rights to do anything with it. If you're the type to actually check which license a piece of software uses, and perhaps even to read said license yourself, then it's no big deal, but most people don't do that.
Microsoft isn't paying me, and I care about the definition of open source.
Term 4 is my favourite one, i wish more client server software would also provide the server side
I just hope that it wouldn't create more mess for people who would want to mix "source first" software with other "open source" licenses.
Also: what happens when person who created "source first" app die? I mean according to license then nobody can profit out of it I think?
It depends on the FOSS license. You couldn't mix GPL with this but you could with BSD. But, why would someone want to contribute to FUTOs profits for no gain?
The license is irrelevant, it is who holds the copyright, which if held by a individual could be passed on as inheritance. If a company holds the copyright, it won't matter if the original developer shuffles off to the great cubicle in the sky. It is no different with OSS or proprietary.
@@nobodyimportant7804 Thanks !
The FUTO license would be compatible with Open Source licenses that allow inclusion in proprietary products (like BSD and MIT); however, other licenses (like the GPL) would be mostly incompatible with the FUTO license.
> Also: what happens when person who created "source first" app die?
Thankfully, there is such a thing as copyright expiration.
@@erkinalp Isn't it very long though?
"source first" is really weird as a term, but at least it's not trying to co-opt an existing one
On a scale of proprietary to open source, this is pretty good, but I would still choose open source software where available. The option to fork is one you hope never to need, but that is crucial for me to be comfortable relying on something
I believe that in the case of e.g. the Grayjay Core License, the proper alternative to forking is a patch file, though I'm not certain on the details of how that would interact with it's rules on modifications. Regardless, I suspect that folks are going to re-learn why so much stuff drifted over to e.g. the MIT and GPL licenses.
It is proprietary where you don't have to pay to see the source, but it has similar restrictions as proprietary with source available.
I like this outcome. =)
That's great
2:13 reminded me of the time long long ago when there was an obscene comment on one of the main pages of Ya ndex using the color of the background. It's invisible unless you select it.
Awesome t-shirt between.
I think there's already a license that prevents this abuses, it's the AGPLv3. It's very rare that software under this license is misused.
That gives the users freedom though; FUTO wants to prevent users from being able to actually modify and use the software. You can't fork their software and develop/fund it separately....
I guess they want all the funds to themselves only. And AGPL is incredibly difficult to monetize in a way they want to.
But you're right. AGPL is a better license anyway.
@@redbird1f873 Well, if they want to monetize just produce shareware or freeware software. This licenses are confusing and often are openwashing.
@@redbird1f873 If you (or your company) is the only author, a solution to monetize is to dual-licence your software to integrate it in other systems without meeting the requirements of the AGPL. Large companies don't like to put links to the source code in their apps and websites.
Love this. Can tell FUTO wants to actually do good in the world!
Ultimately I think it doesn't matter and Open Source is a stronger branding term and gets the point across, but "Source First" is at least slightly catchy.
FOSS is a truly principled "Open Source" definition and Open Source in isolation has always been wishy washy and large corporations who take advantage seem to like it a bit too much.
"Microsoft ❤ Open Source" when it benefits them them, but they clearly don't love FOSS or otherwise want to improve user freedom.
By FOSS do you mean Free Software?
@@NeilHaskins Free and Open Source software, the emphasis is on Free (as in user freedom, not price), the fact that it is Open Source (that is source available + redistribution) is just a means to ensure the supposed "user freedoms". Open source in isolation just means the source is available and can redistributed, Free implies a greater goal to ensure user freedom in all aspects.
@@iotku OK, but the term FOSS, or "free and open source software" refers to software that is "open source" and "free software", as per the Free Software Foundation's definition. I'm not aware of a "FOSS" definition, other than that it's a reference to those two.
As a developer, giving people more options is better. It does get confusing trying to think about all the legal ramifications of your license, but it's nice to see paved paths instead of feeling like you have to blaze your own trail
Is the spirit of the onscreen comment is in the room with us?
8:11 And that is why permissive licenses suck
It's up to the dev to decide what they ultimately value
@@BrodieRobertson True... its just that devs shouldnt complain when they choose a permissive license and then a company takes their code and makes it part of a prorprietary project
You chose a permissive license , so its on you
@@BrodieRobertson For example , Apple and Sony dont owe anything to the FreeBSD project ... the BSD license doesnt require them to help upstream in any way
People are often mad that they dont contribute enough, even though they contribute more than nothing, which is more than what they are required to contribute , which is 0.
That is the nature of permissive licenses
@@mariolis Well, now there might be more readily accessible licenses that fit them better, so they don't have to try to invent something rather than just pick one and start coding.
If they now also get rid of the clause in the license where they can take down any forks they don't like, I could start supporting FUTO projects
Is that in there? That sounds obviously not good
This is *definitely* an example of "Schrödinger's" "parody/joke". In other words they said what they believe out loud while making it possible to pretend it's a joke. If anything this is evidence they shouldn't be trusted.
Their follow-up is proof, by the way. You can tell by how the excuses have been worded, subtly treating actual Open Source as a threat.
P.s. Free software isn't about monetary price and paid support exists. E.g. the paid model is still alive and the reason Ubuntu exists in fact.
Yeah, that was noticably stupid to phrase the original and the follow-up that way. It pollutes communication and how you can trust a company who can't even communicate effectively?
@@a_wild_Kirillian I prefer the honesty rather than being put through some kind of PR filters. I don't buy the parody bit but it's just whatever, that's not the important part
@@Aeroxima , well, the thing is: this forms the opposite impression from honesty. Judging by your own comment.
I very much like what futo's doing
What I've mainly gotten from this discussion is that what we need is a good balance of protections for consumers, *and* developers. So far, open source licenses and software have done well (not perfectly) in protecting consumers when they use it. Futo is here to try to fix the issue that developers aren't being protected properly, (making them tend to need to go to bigger companies that don't protect consumers) while keeping the things needed to protect consumers and share code and effort properly. Finding this middle ground is quite nice, because that aims to help solve a lot of the issues we currently have. Overall, they're still finding a little direction but they're working and trying, pretty effectively.
I think licenses should just be poison pilled for FANG type companies so that those giants have to super open source. I don’t have a business but if I ever do I won’t rely on Source first unless there is no possibility of a rug pull or ongoing expenses for my version of the software. Also if I have to pay for it for commercial use… I better not be required to share my changes.
Just go AGPL by default. Force companies to disclose that they're using your tool and share-alike all modifications and, arguably, all their strongly linked code.
I still have no idea what FUTO is.
It's a funding and grant-giving organization, maybe some lobbying and other stuff too.
I wonder if their name is related to "F* You, Tech Oligopoly". No, No, it *definately* must be japanese word
A group of con artists.
I honestly still think they should just call it "fair source" not "source available"
Proprietary is closer to the truth. You just don't have to pay to see the source but it has similar restrictions as proprietary code where the source can be made available.
I don't believe the claim that the original post was parody, and it really feels like it's mixing a non-apology (we're sorry you feel that way, but that's your fault not ours), with a refusal to admit to wrong doing.
As a developer, I see legal risk in modifying and distributing FUTO licensed code, or even publicly commenting on it (like a security review). As someone working in the software industry, could such actions be construed as (self) promotion, and could such (self) promotion be construed as commercial use? Like any legal document, whether the FUTO license ends up being a benefit or a curse will depend greatly on the details of it's definitions and semantics.
I don't really care about apologies as much as I care about results. If they show that this is the path they want to go down and actually do it, that's enough for me
@@BrodieRobertson For me, it undermines my trust in their words, and leaves me waiting for them to demonstrate their good intentions.
@@Dennis-vh8tz I think we basically agree just phrased differently
@@Dennis-vh8tz I am still waiting for a demonstration of good intentions.
Wait, no I am not. They burned away any goodwill I had towards them and Louis. In my mind, they are as trustworthy as MS, Apple, Samsung, Google, etc.
Anything they say is nothing but damage control and manipulation.
yeah i love futa!
I don't care how they name it or frame it, to me all these almost Open Source licenses are "Open Source like"; similar to how we describe videogame genres such as "Souls like".
Well, I was very harsh on them in the comments in the last video (harsh but fair I think). In that comment I did leave space for them to "change their tune" and it seems like they have done that since the initial statement, so fair play, we move forward.
At least they're being less misleading. Obviously, I won't be using proprietary software that prevents forking (yes, it does prevent forks - read the license, you can't raise any funds for the community development) but maybe some people will like it
Futo: "All your work are belongs to us"
I wonder how many people will get suckered into working for free to profit FUTO?
I fully agree that people should be compensated for the work they do on good software. I've been using Linux mint for a long time now and I've gotten a lot of value from it, so I donated a bit of money because I want to see the project continue. I totally understand if you can't afford to pay for it but if you can, then please donate to things that you get value from
Depends on the project.
The vast majority of the people working on the Linux kernel are getting paid to do so. I also wouldn't donate to The Linux Foundation as that only exists to further corporate interests in Linux and is a corporate tax avoidance scheme. Individuals don't get tax breaks for donating but it is considered a corporate expense.
Before giving money to a foundation that focuses on OSS projects, look at the major contributors and ask yourself if their goals are yours.
Recently found out they also support Immich which is pretty cool!
Generally if I can afford it, I always prefer to pay for products and I like to know the upfront cost so I don't get surprised later.
It's not just about the right thing to do it's about protecting yourself in the long term.
Open Source is in a weird place where I feel like the term implies that you don't need to be paid and that rarely seems to be the case, also it may be ignorance but it's hard to understand how a donation could be fairly distributed to all contributers.
I'll try to donate when I can when I have money but I think the issue is too complicated to take a strong stance about what the right way to do this is.
if you dislike corperate or military uses of your software, the issue is capitalism, not the liscense😭😭
reminds me of the drama where nixos code was used by the idf to do dronestrikes, like im sorry but u dont have any control over this if u develop foss, i know it sucks but i think its really important to not restrict usecases, cuz defining them is kinda vague and lots of important forks coulda never happened otherwise. the issue is that the idf even exists, not that theyre using ur code. if they stopped using nix code theyd just start using someone elses, they dont care cuz they literally just wanna kill people
Good news.
When it comes to open source, single developers usually wont be able to keep it, the best approach is when companies that use open source software also contribute to it.
Don't know if google still does it, but google used to have the open source fridays, where their employees were working 4 days on google stuff and then fifth day they were allowed to spend contributing to open source projects.
I do better understand where they are coming from now, and I do think it's very good of them to not further the conflict and change the definition. Knowing their original position though, I do have one addition to it. The OSI doesn't have the goal of protecting users against exploitation, its only goal from my perspective is to provide freedom in the context of using the source code. Freedom does not rule out exploitation in all cases, these are 2 very different goals. Personally, I do care about protection against exploitation, but I do not think that this should be done in the license. I believe the freedom to access and modify the source code is more important. Protection against exploitation should primarily be a political endeavor, in my opinion.
The idea that freedom is more important than protection, is in the end a value. The distain towards the OSI from FUTO is understandable, given their goal is explicitly at odds with the OSI. I'm not a huge fan of the OSI either. My real issue when they claim open source licenses have failed to protect consumers. Because in reality, whether sponsored by the OSI or not, open source isn't about protecting against corporate exploitation. To me it seems they were projecting their own values onto open source, then claimed that open source failed. Which isn't something they should do in my opinion. FUTO's license doesn't meet my requirements for what I think it the best license, but I certainly wouldn't describe that as failure myself.
Uh Oh Someone called them out... I'll get the PopCorn
I'll get the PopCap Games Framework License
@@nordern1 👏👏👏
Biggest problem with the idea behind the project is that there's nothing built in to protect against corruption. Sure Saint Louis 🙄might hold it together but if he ever leaves for whatever reason the project instantly falls to corruption. And all the projects under its umbrella are crushed to death by that corruption.
The fact that they want to profit on others' unpaid work is enough to tell me to stay away from FUTO and Louis.
@@nobodyimportant7804 Not just profit from someone else's work without paying for it but profit forever from someone else's work without paying for it.
there are x competing standard. Lets create a new standard to unite everyone. Now there are x+1 competing standards
Basically, their software license allows you to do with the code whatever you want, but if you use if for commercial purpose, you should pay FUTO (I guess via contract of some sort). That's nice. But what to do if you become pretty much a maintainer of the fork that is better supported and more valuable for users? Contact FUTO to get a paycheck from them? Relicense for yourself?
Then don't fork it and start your own project. That will keep their grubby hands out of your work.
I'm a dev. I make software. I make free FOSS software and I distribute that software for anyone without having to pay me anything.
However, I also consume software. I use software other people make without paying them anything for using their software. However, for larger software (which one is which I just use my own judgement) I do donate to them. Kdenlive and KDE being two of them.
I can exchange work for work. Which skips the middleman who takes a cut for every credit card transaction.
Everyone can contribute to gratis FOSS software non-monetarily. Some do manuals, some do code, some do design, some do user support, etc... For most software, you don't need to be a programmer to do good support to other people. For others, I do recommend providing monetary compensation. Everyone works hard to make it work.
Practically speaking, design is hard to contribute (or at least I don't know how to)
18:20 To that, I say, the alternative is closing the source so you can pay your developers? Logically that is what is being stated, either or ? That is nuts. Perhaps that way of thinking is more in the light of "everything should be open source and free from charge" but that is also incredibly naive.
Once again Brodie talks about free Linux, that was before he was born and gets it wrong. I got Red Hat free from their server and Red Hat 6.0 was also on APC mag August 1999 cover CD for free. All before Ubuntu was released in 2004
Yes, but it _also_ came in big boxes that you could buy, with multiple CDs and manuals. I'm pretty sure I still have a SuSE 7.3 box (2001) somewhere in my office.
I'm a software engineer and it does matter. Ive wanted to make a open source game engine using specific technologies in specific ways others are not and in my opinion has a high amount of value.
Some projects just require you to work on them full time for them to become viable because of the amount of work.
I am fully capable of doing this at every level and have been writing game related software or games for many years. Sadly, the only way to work on projects like this in an appropriate way is to first make money on a product that isn't directly related.
So, what's the difference between "open source" and "free and open source"(FOSS) ?
open source is just open source, FOSS is open source + free software, it's a better term than each of them separately and afaik every open source license is also a free software license, so there's not that much weirdness concatenating both terms
"Free software" is a separate definition to open source. It's older, and it's based around what user freedoms the software must respect. It works out that almost every open source license is a free software license, and visa-versa, but it represents a different philosophy.
Saying "free and open source" just acknowledges both terms. It doesn't actually indicate there's anything different than if they had just said open source.
FOSS is Free/Libre and OSI licenses.
Free/Libre licenses force you to respect the same freedoms that Open Source licenses usually provide if you modify or copy the program. A lot of OSI licenses like MIT or BSD don't make you to apply the same terms they provide themselves.
It's a little late on this, but I feel like "non-commercial open source" is a fairly nice term for what FUTO is doing. If open source should mean that everyone can use it, adding a restrictive term to the beginning is sensible to me, and more intuitive. I guess you could argue that it's a paradox if you're being obtuse, but I see this as closer to something like the term "Non-Commercial Educational Use", which is basically the same thing. No one is going to go "BuT EduCaTionAL uSe mEaNs ANYtHing EducatIonAl!!!!" and be confused, or least I really hope not. It also then helps people understand that "open source", used as a term by itself, means that you are COMPLETELY letting people, in any capacity, do what they want with the code.
Yep I think “Non-commercial open source” is much more clear than “Source first”
Although you might still have issues trademarking that?
@@almc8445my thought exactly. I think containing the words "open source" can be an issue. This would be a good choice otherwise.
But it is commercial. You have to pay for their software, or at least in theory - they don't check if you _did pay_, but everything they published so far have a price, like 6 or 10 USD. It's kinda a weaker version of "winrar-free" (basically, they don't ask every time you open the app)
@@MauricioSzabo You're confusing the source availability with the software financing - The application itself (Compiled) is commercial software. The source is open but not for commercial users. "Non-commercial" is referring to the source code restrictions not the app itself.
@@almc8445 Just so that I make sure I'm straight on this - Basically, you could host it yourself to run it yourself, but no one really does that. If you want them to do it, you'll pay for that convenience. They're being nice right now and implementing a winrar like system, but that's just them being nice and has nothing to do with the licensing? Is this correct?
What I'd really like is this kind of licensing that switches to true open source after like, 2-5 years or something
We love futa
This is an interesting development, and I gotta think about it. The thing is, I want to find a way to pay for the work of developers without Big Tech getting a cut for doing "nothing" (yeah, I am aware that I completely have a blind eye on the infrastructure part here - we need to get rid of Big Tech Infrastructure as well).
And hey, I am one of about 10 people who actually owns a WinRAR license... 😁
W
Increase the font size of the articles you show on your videos please. Ctrl + as you record please.
for the argument of having another thing to remember i would always tell people what i do, just write down a short summary in your own words what it means which you can easy look up.
ideally in a software which makes it easy to organize everything youw rite down and propperly connect the relations to each other.
When it comes to the funding of OSS, I would like to think it will be free to individuals and small businesses with donations strongly encouraged. People in these situations should make donations to the software developers / groups for the the software they use.
When it comes to SME's and larger corporations, perhaps a license could be developed were they had to pay something. Still cheaper than full commercial software.
I seem to remember something about dual licenses in the past, but I can't recall fully what they were about.
Futonari? Yes, I have heard of it.
I am a developer, but after a few projects i started sharing less. It was meant as a hobby, but as users started to depend on a library or a piece of software things quickly escalated to stressful. Sometimes users were being downright unfriendly up to boasting being able to do a better job. So i gave one project to a complaining user, and not 24 hours later he disowned it for not having any clue what to do with the code. If users keep treating developers this way projects will die or become closed source.
Yet the AI hype train keeps telling programmers they will be jobless in the coming years. Yeah right.
It is not Open Source... Non-commercial is a must... 😂😂😂
talking about telemetry can we get firefox to get them to remove theirs? Look at the librewolf patches. KDE can be built without telemetry but how many distros will do that.
kde telemetry is fully disabled by default though? i don't see the point of removing it at build time
@@somenameidk5278 It should not be there in the first place.
@@somenameidk5278 It should not be there in the first place.
@@somenameidk5278 unused code could be exploited even if its not "active".
That's why I'm signed up for mints patreon. They gotta get paid if Im gonna keep using it
I really don't believe the original was meant to be a parody. maybe just the first line, but not the document as a whole.
parody plays with absurdity. it should make you be shocked there's anyone alive who actually thinks like that. and it should get more extreme the deeper you read into the text.
none of the above were done here.
I think open source and source available are two terms that certainly need a renaming to fix their misunderstandings.
My only complaint was piggybacking off the term with a definition, rather than creating a term that defines what they intend so that we can all be on the same page. With Source First, you can add it to a matrix that explains at a glance what is and isn't allowed under that standard and people will get it. I mean you could if not for the FSF using and insisting on Free Software, which they've been doing since before I was born-but has been a source of confusion for outsiders from the start.)
FWIW, and AFAICR, Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond coined the term "Open Source" themselves. The term was NOT "in common use", it was "too generic". I was there, Gandalf, etc. We were kind of miffed actually, because the DFSG and OSIOSD are effectively the same thing (minor wording changes), and an "Open Source™" would've made defining something as DFSG-compliant or not really easy. As it is, I think the DFSG is possibly used today still as much as the OSI definition.
I'm just interested in the "source first" memes.
Also, it'll be nice when/if Valve releases SteamOS so I can just use that instead of Ubuntu, then I'll be "paying" my distributor every time I buy games.
futa
Stills proprietary tho
Kappa
If I could choose between contributing and paying, it solve the paying problem for me, idk about anyone else.
I think the reason it failed as parody is because it didn't go far enough in satirizing the form. If you look at some stuff like the onion's supreme Court brief you can kind of see how parody works and I think they made an honest attempt and they kind of just missed the mark.
Honestly, it failed because they were serious but got bit and are playing the "I was just pretending to be stupid" card. Well, not stupid but the real word would likely get this comment deleted.