Open source licenses must allow free redistribution. FTL allows license suspension and termination at any time, without notice, for any or no reason.
Open source licenses must allow source code distribution. FTL allows restrictions to access the code at any time, without notice, for any or no reason.
Open source licenses must allow modifications. FTL allows modifications only for non-commercial use, or maybe not even that. FTL dodges the word modifications here, no clue.
Open source licenses must explicitly allow distribution of software built from modified source code. FTL forbids distribution of software built from modified source code for commercial use.
Open source licenses must not discriminate against persons/groups and fields of endeavor. FTL allows license suspension and termination at any time, without notice, for any or no reason.
The FTL enables the following practices:
Copyright holders can change the license terms.
Copyright holders can re-license everything.
Copyright holders can target specific groups and individuals with discriminatory license terms.
Copyright holders can close source everything.
Copyright holders can forbid specific groups and individuals from using their work.
My main gripe here is that the video sells a source-available software with severe usage restrictions as open-source. These restrictions may sound reasonable to people outside of the open-source world, especially to people who use similar wording in their own terms of service, but nobody would touch your software with a ten foot pole with a software license like that.
I’m not quite sure what you mean? Louis calls it open-source during the entire “This is open source, but it is NOT free!” segment. But what he describes as open-source is not open-source, but source-available.
Friendly reminder that Grayjay is only source-available.
FUTO Temporary License (FTL) violates the following open-source principles:
The FTL enables the following practices:
My main gripe here is that the video sells a source-available software with severe usage restrictions as open-source. These restrictions may sound reasonable to people outside of the open-source world, especially to people who use similar wording in their own terms of service, but nobody would touch your software with a ten foot pole with a software license like that.
It doesn’t? Louis spends quite a bit of time going over why they aren’t fully open source and how they’ve arrived at that result.
I’m not quite sure what you mean? Louis calls it open-source during the entire “This is open source, but it is NOT free!” segment. But what he describes as open-source is not open-source, but source-available.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
“This is open source, but it is NOT free!” segment
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Good bot (and it’s also open source, the actual kind)
deleted by creator