The more I hear about Louis Rossman and Futo the less I trust either of them. I used to like Louis for his right to repair conversations, but Futo is a very shady organization. They act like they promote open source but refuse to adopt actual FOSS licensing and try to be overly corporate while also trying to play the pro-consumer side. I don’t like it. There are YouTube frontends made by actual FOSS developers with proper FOSS licenses, so I’m not sure why anyone should support or use Grayjay.
Rossman doesn’t work for FUTO anymore. FUTO has done some weird shit and Rossman has made some missteps in the past, but at least for him his heart seems to be in the right place. I don’t think it’s in his nature to want to screw you over so to speak.
My understanding is the issue on calling it open source was a sincere difference of word usage (can see the source code) and going forward they would use a different term for their licence intention (can see the code but must pay the copyright holder if you make money off forking/using it).
You named a supposed benefit of what FUTO tries to accomplish with their licensing, but gave an example of a project that has a broadly used license, not specific to FUTO.
That is more confusing since free software is a double entendre. The software could be monetarily free, or it could be free to use for development.
I think the best way to move forward is to make active attempts to distinguish open source, ie freely modifiable code, & source available, ie code can be viewed but not modified. There are probably some shortfalls here and I would love to hear them, but this is what I have been doing when I talk about software.
The more I hear about Louis Rossman and Futo the less I trust either of them. I used to like Louis for his right to repair conversations, but Futo is a very shady organization. They act like they promote open source but refuse to adopt actual FOSS licensing and try to be overly corporate while also trying to play the pro-consumer side. I don’t like it. There are YouTube frontends made by actual FOSS developers with proper FOSS licenses, so I’m not sure why anyone should support or use Grayjay.
Rossman has always been a very classic example of a shit person who is right about one thing in a very toxic way.
He’s entirely right about right to repair. He’s also toxic as fuck about it, runs with shady people and has always had very questionable motives.
But he is right about right to repair.
Rossman doesn’t work for FUTO anymore. FUTO has done some weird shit and Rossman has made some missteps in the past, but at least for him his heart seems to be in the right place. I don’t think it’s in his nature to want to screw you over so to speak.
Did he quit? I don’t see any concrete references online, just vague form conversations about it.
I don’t give a shit about drama. You dig into anybody’s life deep enough and you’re going to find something you don’t like.
The software works well and the code is viewable. That’s what’s important to me.
There’s shallow drama, there’s deep drama and there’s Yarvin drama.
My understanding is the issue on calling it open source was a sincere difference of word usage (can see the source code) and going forward they would use a different term for their licence intention (can see the code but must pay the copyright holder if you make money off forking/using it).
FUTO license proposes to actually generate income for “source available” developers. It’s worked out very well for open source Immich.
Except immich actually uses the AGPLv3
Yes I did say open source.
You named a supposed benefit of what FUTO tries to accomplish with their licensing, but gave an example of a project that has a broadly used license, not specific to FUTO.
The term open source has lost its original meaning for some time now.
Which is why using it should be considered harmful and everyone should say “Free Software” instead.
That is more confusing since free software is a double entendre. The software could be monetarily free, or it could be free to use for development. I think the best way to move forward is to make active attempts to distinguish open source, ie freely modifiable code, & source available, ie code can be viewed but not modified. There are probably some shortfalls here and I would love to hear them, but this is what I have been doing when I talk about software.