Honestly you should be neither. “Influencers” and other popular characters should not tell you what to do. I am speaking from the perspective of the free software community. FUTO seems to think they can just solve all the problems but the issue is that the create brand new ones. For instance, the ability to fork the code is very important. A license should not restrict a developers ability to fork and make derivative works. A good example of this is Simple Mobile Tools. Simple Mobile tools was bought out by a Iranian ad firm (somehow) and they of course didn’t care to maintain the community and were set on making it profitable. It was forked and it is now called Fossify. The F-droid team initial suspended the app from further updates but after the intentions of the new owner became clear they went ahead and replaced it with the fork. This wouldn’t of happened under the FUTO source available model. They want you to only get software from the original creator. It feels a whole lot like the business license that is also non free
Louis Rossmann doesn’t tell me what to think. He’s just better at saying what I already think. I don’t think developers should have to give up control over their projects. I just think the software should be able to be vetted and serviceable. FUTO’s way is a good way to manage the funding they’re doing, and I suspect they’ll likely go libre later in the cycle.
Btw, the sync app is making me have to read vertically this far down the thread. If you wanna reply again, I’d prefer a PM.
Did you actually read the license?
It isn’t a free software license. (Yes I did read the license and it is not free software compatible)
You a big RMS fan? I’m a big Louis Rossmann fan.
Honestly you should be neither. “Influencers” and other popular characters should not tell you what to do. I am speaking from the perspective of the free software community. FUTO seems to think they can just solve all the problems but the issue is that the create brand new ones. For instance, the ability to fork the code is very important. A license should not restrict a developers ability to fork and make derivative works. A good example of this is Simple Mobile Tools. Simple Mobile tools was bought out by a Iranian ad firm (somehow) and they of course didn’t care to maintain the community and were set on making it profitable. It was forked and it is now called Fossify. The F-droid team initial suspended the app from further updates but after the intentions of the new owner became clear they went ahead and replaced it with the fork. This wouldn’t of happened under the FUTO source available model. They want you to only get software from the original creator. It feels a whole lot like the business license that is also non free
Louis Rossmann doesn’t tell me what to think. He’s just better at saying what I already think. I don’t think developers should have to give up control over their projects. I just think the software should be able to be vetted and serviceable. FUTO’s way is a good way to manage the funding they’re doing, and I suspect they’ll likely go libre later in the cycle.
Btw, the sync app is making me have to read vertically this far down the thread. If you wanna reply again, I’d prefer a PM.
I am dragging this out as I am curious how deep it will go.
It is already a tiny column
Bro. This is the one comment that broke it. 🤪🤪😂🤣🤪😭💀
deleted by creator
It says you’re free to make your own edits for non-commercial use though right? Is that not the same?
deleted by creator