I generally call these sorts of licenses a "dual license". I'm fine with commercial + source available for non-commercial use. I'm a programmer and I know and understand the need to monetize and protect the project. There are quite a few projects that work this way.
Hi, I'm the person that created a blogpost which pleaded you to not redefine open source (which was covered by Brodie). Just want to say thanks for being receptive to the community feedback and making a change. Listening to Eron's thoughts, I understand that many may not have cared about this, but those that do will disproportionately fall towards the category of folks that develop open source software, and have contributed to the reputation of that term. I respect it's easy to initially see open source as just open for viewing, I made the same assumption and most others will do since open source is so common in the software world, and you usually first come across it followed by a link to an open repo, but those rights of open use, modification and distribution are so important even if that's not as easy to realise until you get deeper into publishing or seeing examples of those rules keeping software open. I totally agree the definition is with the community, but I still feel it's important to defend and educate on that existing definition since those core values are important to many, and with any reduced term like "open source" or "free software" or "source first" there's always going to be an education step leading to the full meaning. I really do respect that by its nature open source does not work for everything, since the freedoms it brings can inherently bring challenges, but I don't think that means we have to sacrifice core freedoms of open source to suit that. Establishing and educating on new open source adjacent options like what you're doing here I think is a much better direction overall to offer both options without conflicting with, or changing, what already exists. Thanks again, and all the best with your future goals!
I love how the infotainment in my car is built with all sorts of open source GPL stuff. I have the code, but i cannot modify it on my system, because everything is encrypted and locked bootloader. The DMCA forbids breaking this lock. Who owns this thing? Me or Toyota?
I spent $20,000 in 2022 trying to make progress on weakening Section 1201 of the DMCA. Section 1201 is the part that you have a problem with. In my opinion, it's a cancer.
Open source is not about you modifying someone else's product, it's about you having the ability to create your own product using it or parts of it. If you aks them for the source they used they have to give it to you in nest cases, the hardware that runs it is completely private.
@@J.erem.y GPL/Free software which the top level comment you replied to is about is 100% intended to be about the right to modify and redistribute the software that is running on your machines.
This is a known issue with GPLv2 and the primary reason GPLv3 was created - I highly doubt your car has any GPLv3 software, they'd be violating the license and could be forced by a court to either remove the GPL component or follow the terms of the license and allow for the it to be modified, which in turn would allow you to run your any software on the car. They wouldn't risk it. You can look up "tivoization" if you want the full story, that's the term used for the practice of signing/encrypting GPL-style software to prevent you from modifying it.
@@pleggli under that theory I can open source the gcode I created for my CNC and it gives you the right to run it on my machine? Im not sure that's how it works... I think the disconnect here is that people assume they own the equipment in the car they bought. While they should in an ideal world, it was locked when you bought it, essentially you have a license to use it. Again not how it should be or what I want, but just reality. You own nothing you don't have full control of.
Really glad to see these discussions being productive. There is a lot of thought and care going into FUTO, and it really shows. I am so glad to see it.
I disagree with open source having to be allowed to be used however you want. I can see the source code, I call it open source. If I am allowed to use the code however I want, then I call it FOSS, Free and Open source. Otherwise I see no reason to have the phrase/term FOSS. What's the point of calling it free when all open source is free?
The difference between them is politics, not the license itself really. Free software is a much older term. The term open source was created to remove the politics of free software to not scare away corporations and to focus on the practical benefit of open source development rather than the freedoms of it, as such open source usually recommends MIT or similar licenses that allow corporations to use the code and make it closed source (proprietary) while free software recommends GPL to ensure user freedom in all cases
Ya, I would have to say that's my thinking now after they explained things and with citing Richard Stallman. If you can see, modify and compile the source yourself it's open source but most people think of FOSS when they think of open source.
Tend to agree. Something can be open source and come with a business license (Uniswap v3), making it easy to write code for, and to verify. Can also appreciate people who have spent years working on something giving themselves some legal protection in trying to realise a return on their investment. So I don't open source isn't the same as free software (for which I am strong proponent). Foss developers need to be rewarded for their expertise, we will have less well meaning devs who feel forced to go for more restrictive licenses.
I really live what you all are doing at FUTO! Some of the greatest pieces of software to come along in a while! Grayjay and the keyboard work flawlessly. And from people I can trust! Been following Louis for years!
Bunch of drama over nothing. Just call it open source with commercial restrictions. Done. Everyone understands what it means and people can stop crying about it. You're doing amazing work with this, it's so cool to see you grow as a community leader and your role in this cause.
Trust comes from consistency. Louis has been consistent all theses years and I build my trust in his views only based on that. I really need to learn more and understand FUTO initiative better.
Appreciate all the inside into the intent with the term Open Source at FUTO. Everything seems reasonable. The Functional Source License is close to what you may be going for.
source first, is okay... i like *futo'y*... as well as the fair-code thing... Cause the term "source first" makes me think of a priority in pushing out the source code, like... a source-front and foremost kindve thing (which is an interesting sentiment), but hey.. its fine.
People really have double standards here, considering the standard Free License is the GPL X or later, which basically allows the FSF full control of your license.
As someone who works in software, baseball hat dude's characterization of the situation (including the Wayland example) rings very true. I hope this stuff goes somewhere.
Love Eron's joke about conspiracies! "Nobody's organized enough." 😆 I hope you'll hire remote and internationally at some point. (And have a suitable role for me.) You seem like a really great bunch.
There have been people in the past who tried to subvert software freedoms in the past, look at the "ethical source" people. It's clearly not your intention, and I am thankful for what you are doing. Thank you for clearing up the misunderstanding.
This is the very definition of "pettiness" by the community. The code is open to review, the code is forkable then it is OPEN SOURCE. It is just and also fair that you will not be able to monetized it. It is just and also fair that you will not be able to claim it as YOUR OWN WORK! Keep Up The Good Work++
So how about a system where if FUTO decides to drop something, it (perhaps after a time) becomes actual open source(would allow retaining copyright, the credit where credit is due; MIT or BSD)/straight up public domain(loss of copyrights, meaning loss of requiring people to include credit if they don't want to)?
Frankly, I don't have a problem with a restriction on commercial use and still using the term "open source", as it means the source code is open, and freely available, it suggests nothing else. But if "open source" feels like the wrong term, then perhaps the term "open access license" or "personal use license" might serve better? Just something to suggest that it's free and open for personal use.
Louis, I have a question for you: What kind of situations couldn't be addressed with the AGPLv3 and a trademarked brand? As far as I know, if someone takes AGPL code and makes applications that are then sold while hiding the fact that the license is AGPL, I can imagine multiple situations: - That the person doesn't change the code or the brand. In that case they can be sued for trademark infringement. - That the person changes the brand but not the code: If they don't advertise the fact that it's AGPL and that it's free to distribute they're breaking the license and can be sued. - That the person also changes the code: In addition to the above they have to publish any change they have done. And distributions and F-droid are free to freely distribute builds of the application with any undesirable changes (like ads and tracking) removed.
@@erkinalp then they can make/use a new equivalent license that is still FLOSS. Still, OP is right and trademark+copyleft is the best option. Mozilla does something similar, where any forks have to rebrand themselves (LibreWolf and IceWeasel come to mind). FUTO should just use a proper FLOSS license.
They want strong money theft deterrent. They want to be able to pick and choose who can make money with it full stop. They want people to copy it, they just don't want people to make money from it. Problem is, those lawsuits to prove someone stole it cost alot of money themselves.
Because they want to make money. The point is that if a big corp uses your software they have to pay you. AGPL doesn't force you to pay the original developers, it forces you to open-source the fork you're running on your server, which is cool, but doesn't help the original developer make a living off their work.
@FUTOTECHand @rossmanngroup, This is GREAT! Listening to the two most influential people at FUTO sit and talk about their personal, technical and ethical philosophies is such a great insight into how the company will do business. It has a very WAN Show feel without being 3 hours long. Eron has a been a great person to listen/learn from, for me, and Louis is always fun to listen to and his humble, yet pitbull ish, attitude will help keep operations of FUTO on the up and up as the company grows. Well done and I look forward to seeing how this unfolds in the future and utilizing/developing software partnered with FUTO. Please do more of this content together as FUTO moves forward and grows.
I would propose calling it "royal source", because it's basically just requiring royalties for commercial use, but free use remains free if you do it as a percentage. As Master Roshi once said "a third of zero is still zero".
I think the question of forking is interesting. The same clause that stops lazy scammers from duplicating it and spamming the play store with clones will stop genuine hobbyists wanting to iterate on the software to make something new based on that. Especially when their vision of the software diverges from FUTA. I assume the fork would then have to make a commercial deal with the original creator. But then what if the original creator is the dick and doesn't want specific types of forks / certain people working on the fork, like with what happened with that one minecraft launcher or mod manager.
I think that comes down to being a form of "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone", which is a common (and long-debated) sentiment in business. So while it's definitely a step down from the freedoms "open source" provides, it's nothing new, and I'm willing to work with it. I should say that the creator being evil/turning out to be or into a dick would be less of a problem if we had sane copyright laws. Under the original 25 year terms the US had, for instance, you would have a reasonable expectation of software going public domain while the machines it ran on were still working, giving you time to spruce up the software for whatever you wanted while still having it around as a reference.
@@Lotus-Bloom and what happens if the original project choses to implement something similar to the fork so that the significant changes becomes less significant? Something similar is a major problem/question about the Business Source License which forbids competitive offerings based on the BSL licensed product which could mean anything a licensor decides to start offering at any time in the future.
I swear I had a comment right after this video was posted that got erased by RUclips's ridiculous algorithm. Anyway I don't know enough about the open source world to comment on definitions. But I do think it's important for people to remember that Loius is an employee here and that this isn't necessarily his rodeo full time and forever. He has earned so many trust credits with his audience, even though he routinely tells them not to trust anyone including him.... I hope people recognize that futo is a distinct company that he works for and it's not necessarily his vision that will win out. Practice entirely possible in a year or two years or 5 years or whatever he might not be working there anymore. So I think it's just important to remember that as much as a lot of us have grown to trust him, we need to be skeptical of him and most importantly recognize that we need to be skeptical of the institution which is distinct from him. Futo should be judged as a separate entity from Rossmann, because it's not his project. He is obviously playing a key role in it but we don't know how long that will be the case and we don't know how much of the final product will be his vision or not.
1:06:24 So before you guys said "no crypto shit" but then here you say you can have a crypto link for donations. Can you elaborate exactly what you mean by this? Like, I'm very well familiar that cryptocurrency is mostly just outright scams, but at the same time I know my community developed and community defined social construct that we call Bitcoin is not and so we have this re-implementation of RSS basically called NOSTR where your post can have a Bitcoin payment link in it and we call that "zaps". So would that fall under "no crypto shit" or you know what I mean?
The crypto payment or donation is to ensure anonymity. Not everyone is comfortable to give payment information and other things that can be tracked back to them who they are. So crypto is used for them so that they can be stay anonymous using the internet payments. It is also used in VPN services Also in Linux distribution donations, especially where people prefer anonymity.
"Source first" is brilliant, if you ask me. It makes it clear that you guys are leading with the source. "Show me the source code, and then we'll talk." I could see myself going all-in on this term. It also helps squash some potential for abuse that I've been worried about with "source available". EG: Some scummy company selling source code at a high premium with a restrictive license could probably get away with saying it's "source available", even though the spirit of that software wouldn't be FUTO-y at all. As much good as Stallman does, he's always a hindrance when it comes to clarity and vernacular. I've always hated that Stallman calls libre software "free software". Even he admits that it needs to be re-explained over and over again to distinguish "libre" free from "gratis" free. It makes sense how that Stallman quote at 5:09 could make him think calling it "open source" was a good idea.
I don't care what it is called as long as there is no attempt to manipulate or con people through the term used. It doesn't bother me that this is called open source, but I can see the issue. As long as they're always transparent and up front, then I'm not worried. I think the better option would be to differentiate it though.
I think the reason the meaning of open source changed because of Linux and other great projects that are open and free software. That's why the community now has a different definition to the traditional. The amount of people who care about this can probably be gaged by looking at the support for open source social media accounts. The people that care about this the most are also the people who develop the most.
My opinion of "open source" - however we call it - ot even without giving it a name - is that a registered company needs to have a licence to use the software or image or audio video media. They need to obtain the licence :) - every other, not registered, hobbyists, pirates etc dont need the licence , they can even disassembly the binaries if they need. That futo licence prototype is still only mentioning the non-commercial users so all the commercial users dont have a licence to use it anyway.
I wonder what the law is around software/code that is free to access/download/use but no license is available. I think it would fall under copyright & fair use law (in the u.s. anyway), and ... Well i really just don't know, but i think its better to grant a more permissive and explicit license for those hobbyists and such.
@@reed6514 When the code is without an explicit license, then it varies. For example, any code you post on StackOverflow is licensed as per their ToS, but unlicensed code on GitHub is source-available and all rights are reserved solely for the author.
I trust Mr Rossmann , that's what 10+ years of listening to his views and actions have accomplished. However, the other guy talking points and arguments sound kinda fishy. He should know better.
Right and it's important to know that Rossman is an employee here and we don't know how long he'll work there. Or how much of the final vision will be his versus someone else's. And of course he would tell us to scrutinize him and not trust anyone including him. My biggest concern, and if you look at the chat you notice it, is there's a lot of fanboy kind of rhetoric. And I get it he's earned a lot of trust credits as an advocate for consumer rights and repairability and users not getting screwed by big tech. But we need to follow his advice now more than ever and not trust anyone and especially recognize that Futo needs to be judged distinct from him, bc he may not be there forever and it's not his project per se.. I don't know maybe he will still be affiliated with the company in 20 years but it's hard to say and we don't even really know his role now. But I do agree that the guy on the left seems a little less trustworthy, just good one I don't know as much about him and two he's disagrees with rossman on a few things that ultimately could become consequential down the road
I'm gonna have to completely disagree with you on this one. 5:02 - This is the current opinion I have. Free 'libre' software - Free as in freedom. Free of restrictions. Open source - The source is open to the public. Free & open source - The source is open to the public and has no licencing restrictions giving users unlimited power. -Free- & open source - The source is open to the public but includes licencing restrictions that protect the creator. The only definition that really matters in the end is the one the user gives. If Microsoft uses 'open' as in 'spread butt cheeks ready for a railing', then that's the definition the community will use in the context of Microsoft.
Long time ago software was distributed on disk drives, and released once a year. It was easies to provide the source so users could fix bugs themselves, cos all users was programmers anyway. Open Source is distribution feature, not tablets with 10 commandments.
Open source wins in foundation software, not in end user software. I personally believe it's a lack of care from users about their rights and freedoms and I believe you will face similar issues, but I wish you the best with this. Btw, thanks a lot for changing the term! This has definitely restored a lot of trust.
That's how I've generally seen it used. "Open source" means you can see the source code. "Free" means you don't have to pay to use it. Synonymous with "freeware". "FOSS" means both. May or may not have conditions for modification and redistribution. "Libre" appears to be a more specific type of FOSS. You can have a program that's FOSS but still has a separate, closed-source paid version that may share source code with the free version. pfSense is a perfect example of such software.
@@trajectoryunown "free" as in "free speech", not as in "free beer". There's also FLOSS (Free/Libre Open Source Software), which uses "libre" because it's more clear on the meaning.
Huh? I always thought open source means exactly what it says. The source is available publicly. That's it. I never bothered to look up a definition because I thought that this was obvious. Guess I was wrong. But then again, most people also call pretty much anyone who is 30+ years old "boomers" these days. If one knows what "boomer" actually means, one knows that the majority is wrong. Then again, like Louis says, in a sense, when the majority declares something to mean a certain thing, that makes it not wrong. Maybe we should discuss the different kinds of "wrong"... 😆
You are not wrong, the word explains itself. Open source, the source is open to the public, not closed off. Open source will be the only word I will use for any program with source available publicly.
Open to view, open to modify, open to redistribute, open to sell. It's not JUST open to view, which IMO is why "source available" is a common term for projects where viewing is open but other usages are closed.
Hm, I suppose the "also open to modify/redistribute/sell" interpretation does make sense. The problem is that this might only be understood by a minority even in the tech community. I've starred over 100 projects on GitHub and collected about the same amount on my projects and I'm not sure that I've ever heard "source available" used as something to differentiate from "open source". Which is not to say that it's not worth discussing but I think one should also keep in mind that one also might have to educate millions of developers and possibly convince them to use different terminology.
Once a new license comes out and is polished, I'd very much like to use it, I love linux and open source, but I can't stand the idea of Microsoft or Google stealing my code and giving me the middle finger
Finally. And thanks. I still think non-FOSS licenses are non-ethical but at least you're not miss-representing anything anymore. On the other hand those rug-pull clauses how you call it or CLA how other company are calling them is just sensible way to do in case you'll figure out in future your license is not great fit for your usecase. and at least in case of FOSS licenses I don't think they are a bad thing. It allows you to change license if you need and if software is FOSS and you do a dirty rugpull, the community can always take over. And about Stallman and `open source`. Stallman wasn't trying to coin nor change of meaning of term `open source`, he doesn't like OSI, Open source, or anything about it.
It seems to me that most developers, me included, always thought that open-source is simply having access to the source code. Further licensing can be different, I never really cared. I always thought that it means that I can build my own version, fork it and use it for free, but the original owner can totally forbid commercial use. I never really cared about idealists, people who master operating systems and brag about their Linux skills, instead of developing applications. Developers want money for their work, it's really that simple. Huge corporations are the place to go for everyone who grew tired of sometimes really toxic open-source community. These people sometimes have problems with understanding basics of how the world works. Being moral and good won't pay my rent, future for my children and retirement. You guys seem to understand it and try to find a very reasonable middle ground. This is a chance for good quality and transparent software made with its users in mind, not B2B partners and users as a product.
We need to offer a way for private communication and "reliable" free media for masses as the social revolution is taking over all the developed countries.
@@Onyx-it8gk the possibility of forking due to the original project not being worked on or if your own requirements diverge from the upstream project are also important. I have done both many times during my career
@@justfly1984 Open source also includes the ability to fork the codebase and it has happened multiple times where the original project either got mismanaged, unlikable changes were implemented or has been turned propriatary (most infamously, Oracle when they acquired Sun Microsystem and relicensed e.g. Solaris, OpenOffice and MySQL to be propriatary but in turn caused the creation of Illumos, LibreOffice and MariaDB).
That would in turn make it that software not free. Or only "technically free". Also, if the software was made by more than 1 person, they should be in as a "group" to which you'd have to pay. And that doesn't happen all the time that there's a structured legal collective of the developers where there's 1 assigned person on which, should you earn money for your software, you "trust" this person to do their job on paying everyone else. This is an L take in my opinion.
@@LautaroQ2812its free to use. No free to make money of somebody elses work. There would be a difference to have a company that does pay support for lets say LibreOffice for businesses. The support makes money off of LibreOffice not by using their code, but selling their expertise. If you take libreoffice and name it AmongusOffice and sell it for $69 monthly with support - you gotta pay
I understand your dillemma, what i will say as this video comes off not as a rug pull, but a warning of a future impending rug pull. The forced arbitration clause didn't help either. Open source is the communism of software, and it doesn't work there either. There is a reason why the right-to-repair movement chose the red fist as the logo.
This “license” has to be the most moronic license I have ever seen. So what if I do want to use any of your software in a commercial setting? I will pay cool, but smoll pp Lois here and his daddy billionaire have the right to outright deny me service, or name an outrageous price to tell me to F off. This is not about funding developers, this is about smol pp menlets wanting to maintain total control. Name it “The smol pp License”
Hi. Me Again. Software Developer with 25 years of professional experience working at FANG. You might have seen some of my videos. You deleted my other comment as I can no longer find it. The license I see is simply unacceptable to me as a developer who is your target demographic. As a software developer, I want to make money, or I want to do good. It would be great to do both but we don't have that opportunity. Your asking devs like me me to work for you for free and not allowing us to have a fair exchange of value. Your asking us to work for you and write code without being able to leverage it for our own projects. You want us to have only costs for a project, while building up your company for free using our labor. You seem to want to take our work, without paying us, based on a strict reading of the license as it takes away our default rights. That is unacceptable. If you really want devs to be the ones making money, why does the license focus on taking away the devs rights?
@@Rojfos no I’m a real person. My problem is that every single license that I’ve seen so far includes a rug pull. My earlier comment was made about halfway into the video so I’m happy to update it now that I’ve watched the entire thing , the overall impression is that I contribute to a project funded by them, then I’m going to risk losing all access to my contribution and it’s effectively treating me like I’m an employee, giving them the right to take away my access to the source code or project at any time, despite the fact that I’m not going to be allowed to benefit from my contribution by default. So they’re looking to get all of the benefit of hiring a software development engineer to work on their project, but they’re not giving them value in return or remunerating them in a fair exchange of value. I don’t think that’s fair.
Two things. Firstly, we don't delete your comments. If you go to my live channel, you'll see a video called RUclips is Fundamentally Broken, where I demonstrate how my own comments do not even show up on my own channel. This is a fundamentally broken platform. Secondly, we do want our developers to get paid, which is why we are paying them top tier salaries to work on our software. Eron is measuring the success of the organization based on the quality of the software and how many people love it, not on how many code contributions he gets from other developers. We are not asking anybody to work on this software without getting paid lots of money for it. But we are also not measuring our success based on the amount of people who wish to contribute code to it. I think the core misunderstanding here is you believe that we are asking you to make code contributions or work on our software for free. I don't think we've ever done that. I'm actually pretty damn sure we've never done that.
@@honestduane I'm gonna back Louis on this one, RUclips is a fundamental broken platform that deletes comments, including his own off of his own videos, It seems its here to cause conflict and strife along with destroying the community trust with everyone involved. Don't take it to heart, this is not a platform to actually discuss anything of value.
Throwing my hat into the ring, I think it should be called "Public Source". Free for the Public, not free for Business.
Seconded. And it's quite self-explanatory.
"Corporations are people my friend." -Mitt Romney.
I like this a lot.
I would prefer the Unreal model. Free for the public, not free for successful business.
Commercial Use Limited Software CULS
I generally call these sorts of licenses a "dual license". I'm fine with commercial + source available for non-commercial use.
I'm a programmer and I know and understand the need to monetize and protect the project. There are quite a few projects that work this way.
Hi, I'm the person that created a blogpost which pleaded you to not redefine open source (which was covered by Brodie).
Just want to say thanks for being receptive to the community feedback and making a change.
Listening to Eron's thoughts, I understand that many may not have cared about this, but those that do will disproportionately fall towards the category of folks that develop open source software, and have contributed to the reputation of that term.
I respect it's easy to initially see open source as just open for viewing, I made the same assumption and most others will do since open source is so common in the software world, and you usually first come across it followed by a link to an open repo, but those rights of open use, modification and distribution are so important even if that's not as easy to realise until you get deeper into publishing or seeing examples of those rules keeping software open.
I totally agree the definition is with the community, but I still feel it's important to defend and educate on that existing definition since those core values are important to many, and with any reduced term like "open source" or "free software" or "source first" there's always going to be an education step leading to the full meaning.
I really do respect that by its nature open source does not work for everything, since the freedoms it brings can inherently bring challenges, but I don't think that means we have to sacrifice core freedoms of open source to suit that.
Establishing and educating on new open source adjacent options like what you're doing here I think is a much better direction overall to offer both options without conflicting with, or changing, what already exists.
Thanks again, and all the best with your future goals!
I love how the infotainment in my car is built with all sorts of open source GPL stuff. I have the code, but i cannot modify it on my system, because everything is encrypted and locked bootloader. The DMCA forbids breaking this lock.
Who owns this thing? Me or Toyota?
I spent $20,000 in 2022 trying to make progress on weakening Section 1201 of the DMCA. Section 1201 is the part that you have a problem with. In my opinion, it's a cancer.
Open source is not about you modifying someone else's product, it's about you having the ability to create your own product using it or parts of it. If you aks them for the source they used they have to give it to you in nest cases, the hardware that runs it is completely private.
@@J.erem.y GPL/Free software which the top level comment you replied to is about is 100% intended to be about the right to modify and redistribute the software that is running on your machines.
This is a known issue with GPLv2 and the primary reason GPLv3 was created - I highly doubt your car has any GPLv3 software, they'd be violating the license and could be forced by a court to either remove the GPL component or follow the terms of the license and allow for the it to be modified, which in turn would allow you to run your any software on the car. They wouldn't risk it.
You can look up "tivoization" if you want the full story, that's the term used for the practice of signing/encrypting GPL-style software to prevent you from modifying it.
@@pleggli under that theory I can open source the gcode I created for my CNC and it gives you the right to run it on my machine? Im not sure that's how it works... I think the disconnect here is that people assume they own the equipment in the car they bought. While they should in an ideal world, it was locked when you bought it, essentially you have a license to use it. Again not how it should be or what I want, but just reality. You own nothing you don't have full control of.
Really glad to see these discussions being productive.
There is a lot of thought and care going into FUTO, and it really shows.
I am so glad to see it.
I disagree with open source having to be allowed to be used however you want. I can see the source code, I call it open source. If I am allowed to use the code however I want, then I call it FOSS, Free and Open source. Otherwise I see no reason to have the phrase/term FOSS. What's the point of calling it free when all open source is free?
I agree with you. the FSF and the OSI are a bunch of morons.
The difference between them is politics, not the license itself really. Free software is a much older term. The term open source was created to remove the politics of free software to not scare away corporations and to focus on the practical benefit of open source development rather than the freedoms of it, as such open source usually recommends MIT or similar licenses that allow corporations to use the code and make it closed source (proprietary) while free software recommends GPL to ensure user freedom in all cases
Ya, I would have to say that's my thinking now after they explained things and with citing Richard Stallman. If you can see, modify and compile the source yourself it's open source but most people think of FOSS when they think of open source.
Tend to agree. Something can be open source and come with a business license (Uniswap v3), making it easy to write code for, and to verify.
Can also appreciate people who have spent years working on something giving themselves some legal protection in trying to realise a return on their investment. So I don't open source isn't the same as free software (for which I am strong proponent).
Foss developers need to be rewarded for their expertise, we will have less well meaning devs who feel forced to go for more restrictive licenses.
This is informative and really fortunate.
I really live what you all are doing at FUTO! Some of the greatest pieces of software to come along in a while! Grayjay and the keyboard work flawlessly. And from people I can trust! Been following Louis for years!
Bunch of drama over nothing. Just call it open source with commercial restrictions. Done. Everyone understands what it means and people can stop crying about it. You're doing amazing work with this, it's so cool to see you grow as a community leader and your role in this cause.
Trust comes from consistency. Louis has been consistent all theses years and I build my trust in his views only based on that. I really need to learn more and understand FUTO initiative better.
Appreciate all the inside into the intent with the term Open Source at FUTO. Everything seems reasonable. The Functional Source License is close to what you may be going for.
source first, is okay... i like *futo'y*... as well as the fair-code thing... Cause the term "source first" makes me think of a priority in pushing out the source code, like... a source-front and foremost kindve thing (which is an interesting sentiment), but hey.. its fine.
People really have double standards here, considering the standard Free License is the GPL X or later, which basically allows the FSF full control of your license.
As someone who works in software, baseball hat dude's characterization of the situation (including the Wayland example) rings very true. I hope this stuff goes somewhere.
Love Eron's joke about conspiracies! "Nobody's organized enough." 😆
I hope you'll hire remote and internationally at some point. (And have a suitable role for me.)
You seem like a really great bunch.
Eron, not Aaron. His name is Eron Wolf. :)
@@Vic.Vega_RD Whoops, corrected - thanks!
@@Vic.Vega_RD Whoops - corrected, thanks! 😅
Loved that TV show by the way! Was kind of a secret tip back then if I recall correctly.
There're *enough* organized people to have conspiracies.
There have been people in the past who tried to subvert software freedoms in the past, look at the "ethical source" people. It's clearly not your intention, and I am thankful for what you are doing. Thank you for clearing up the misunderstanding.
This is the very definition of "pettiness" by the community.
The code is open to review, the code is forkable then it is OPEN SOURCE.
It is just and also fair that you will not be able to monetized it.
It is just and also fair that you will not be able to claim it as YOUR OWN WORK!
Keep Up The Good Work++
So how about a system where if FUTO decides to drop something, it (perhaps after a time) becomes actual open source(would allow retaining copyright, the credit where credit is due; MIT or BSD)/straight up public domain(loss of copyrights, meaning loss of requiring people to include credit if they don't want to)?
It's the Unity monetization model. I don't know what the name of it is, but I definitely think it should have one.
Frankly, I don't have a problem with a restriction on commercial use and still using the term "open source", as it means the source code is open, and freely available, it suggests nothing else.
But if "open source" feels like the wrong term, then perhaps the term "open access license" or "personal use license" might serve better?
Just something to suggest that it's free and open for personal use.
Nothing lasts longer than a temporary fix that works.
Louis, I have a question for you: What kind of situations couldn't be addressed with the AGPLv3 and a trademarked brand? As far as I know, if someone takes AGPL code and makes applications that are then sold while hiding the fact that the license is AGPL, I can imagine multiple situations:
- That the person doesn't change the code or the brand. In that case they can be sued for trademark infringement.
- That the person changes the brand but not the code: If they don't advertise the fact that it's AGPL and that it's free to distribute they're breaking the license and can be sued.
- That the person also changes the code: In addition to the above they have to publish any change they have done. And distributions and F-droid are free to freely distribute builds of the application with any undesirable changes (like ads and tracking) removed.
AGPL is strong copyleft. It looks like they don't want strong copyleft.
@@erkinalp then they can make/use a new equivalent license that is still FLOSS.
Still, OP is right and trademark+copyleft is the best option. Mozilla does something similar, where any forks have to rebrand themselves (LibreWolf and IceWeasel come to mind).
FUTO should just use a proper FLOSS license.
@@erkinalp Why not?
They want strong money theft deterrent. They want to be able to pick and choose who can make money with it full stop. They want people to copy it, they just don't want people to make money from it. Problem is, those lawsuits to prove someone stole it cost alot of money themselves.
Because they want to make money. The point is that if a big corp uses your software they have to pay you. AGPL doesn't force you to pay the original developers, it forces you to open-source the fork you're running on your server, which is cool, but doesn't help the original developer make a living off their work.
@FUTOTECHand @rossmanngroup, This is GREAT! Listening to the two most influential people at FUTO sit and talk about their personal, technical and ethical philosophies is such a great insight into how the company will do business. It has a very WAN Show feel without being 3 hours long. Eron has a been a great person to listen/learn from, for me, and Louis is always fun to listen to and his humble, yet pitbull ish, attitude will help keep operations of FUTO on the up and up as the company grows. Well done and I look forward to seeing how this unfolds in the future and utilizing/developing software partnered with FUTO. Please do more of this content together as FUTO moves forward and grows.
I would propose calling it "royal source", because it's basically just requiring royalties for commercial use, but free use remains free if you do it as a percentage. As Master Roshi once said "a third of zero is still zero".
I think the question of forking is interesting. The same clause that stops lazy scammers from duplicating it and spamming the play store with clones will stop genuine hobbyists wanting to iterate on the software to make something new based on that. Especially when their vision of the software diverges from FUTA. I assume the fork would then have to make a commercial deal with the original creator. But then what if the original creator is the dick and doesn't want specific types of forks / certain people working on the fork, like with what happened with that one minecraft launcher or mod manager.
There should be a clause indicating that forks with significant functional differences are allowed.
@@AshtonSnapp The problem with clauses like this is that you have to spend a lot of time even defining what constitutes a "significant change."
I think that comes down to being a form of "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone", which is a common (and long-debated) sentiment in business. So while it's definitely a step down from the freedoms "open source" provides, it's nothing new, and I'm willing to work with it.
I should say that the creator being evil/turning out to be or into a dick would be less of a problem if we had sane copyright laws. Under the original 25 year terms the US had, for instance, you would have a reasonable expectation of software going public domain while the machines it ran on were still working, giving you time to spruce up the software for whatever you wanted while still having it around as a reference.
i love futa
@@Lotus-Bloom and what happens if the original project choses to implement something similar to the fork so that the significant changes becomes less significant? Something similar is a major problem/question about the Business Source License which forbids competitive offerings based on the BSL licensed product which could mean anything a licensor decides to start offering at any time in the future.
I swear I had a comment right after this video was posted that got erased by RUclips's ridiculous algorithm. Anyway I don't know enough about the open source world to comment on definitions. But I do think it's important for people to remember that Loius is an employee here and that this isn't necessarily his rodeo full time and forever. He has earned so many trust credits with his audience, even though he routinely tells them not to trust anyone including him.... I hope people recognize that futo is a distinct company that he works for and it's not necessarily his vision that will win out.
Practice entirely possible in a year or two years or 5 years or whatever he might not be working there anymore. So I think it's just important to remember that as much as a lot of us have grown to trust him, we need to be skeptical of him and most importantly recognize that we need to be skeptical of the institution which is distinct from him. Futo should be judged as a separate entity from Rossmann, because it's not his project. He is obviously playing a key role in it but we don't know how long that will be the case and we don't know how much of the final product will be his vision or not.
1:06:24 So before you guys said "no crypto shit" but then here you say you can have a crypto link for donations. Can you elaborate exactly what you mean by this?
Like, I'm very well familiar that cryptocurrency is mostly just outright scams, but at the same time I know my community developed and community defined social construct that we call Bitcoin is not and so we have this re-implementation of RSS basically called NOSTR where your post can have a Bitcoin payment link in it and we call that "zaps". So would that fall under "no crypto shit" or you know what I mean?
The crypto payment or donation is to ensure anonymity. Not everyone is comfortable to give payment information and other things that can be tracked back to them who they are. So crypto is used for them so that they can be stay anonymous using the internet payments. It is also used in VPN services Also in Linux distribution donations, especially where people prefer anonymity.
"Source first" is brilliant, if you ask me. It makes it clear that you guys are leading with the source. "Show me the source code, and then we'll talk." I could see myself going all-in on this term.
It also helps squash some potential for abuse that I've been worried about with "source available". EG: Some scummy company selling source code at a high premium with a restrictive license could probably get away with saying it's "source available", even though the spirit of that software wouldn't be FUTO-y at all.
As much good as Stallman does, he's always a hindrance when it comes to clarity and vernacular. I've always hated that Stallman calls libre software "free software". Even he admits that it needs to be re-explained over and over again to distinguish "libre" free from "gratis" free. It makes sense how that Stallman quote at 5:09 could make him think calling it "open source" was a good idea.
I don't care what it is called as long as there is no attempt to manipulate or con people through the term used. It doesn't bother me that this is called open source, but I can see the issue. As long as they're always transparent and up front, then I'm not worried. I think the better option would be to differentiate it though.
Why is Louis' face covered by a photo of his own?
He has not slept enough, so he used a cover up image ^^
He's visible in the first 5 minutes
@@Syndesi That's funny lol.
9:53 I also used to work on such company. And I was criticising a lot. And some things even changed.
I think the reason the meaning of open source changed because of Linux and other great projects that are open and free software. That's why the community now has a different definition to the traditional.
The amount of people who care about this can probably be gaged by looking at the support for open source social media accounts. The people that care about this the most are also the people who develop the most.
My opinion of "open source" - however we call it - ot even without giving it a name - is that a registered company needs to have a licence to use the software or image or audio video media. They need to obtain the licence :) - every other, not registered, hobbyists, pirates etc dont need the licence , they can even disassembly the binaries if they need. That futo licence prototype is still only mentioning the non-commercial users so all the commercial users dont have a licence to use it anyway.
I wonder what the law is around software/code that is free to access/download/use but no license is available. I think it would fall under copyright & fair use law (in the u.s. anyway), and ... Well i really just don't know, but i think its better to grant a more permissive and explicit license for those hobbyists and such.
@@reed6514 There is licence only for non-corporate users - others cannot use - but good point, it needs to be written.
@@reed6514 When the code is without an explicit license, then it varies.
For example, any code you post on StackOverflow is licensed as per their ToS, but unlicensed code on GitHub is source-available and all rights are reserved solely for the author.
i use my opportunity of commenting to express my support of AlcorSalvador's idea of "Public Source".Free for the Public, not free for Business.
Why don't you choose BSL or Dual License? What you want is already invented.
Isn't this is what also done by Google if you sell a fork of Android?
I trust Mr Rossmann , that's what 10+ years of listening to his views and actions have accomplished. However, the other guy talking points and arguments sound kinda fishy. He should know better.
Right and it's important to know that Rossman is an employee here and we don't know how long he'll work there. Or how much of the final vision will be his versus someone else's. And of course he would tell us to scrutinize him and not trust anyone including him. My biggest concern, and if you look at the chat you notice it, is there's a lot of fanboy kind of rhetoric. And I get it he's earned a lot of trust credits as an advocate for consumer rights and repairability and users not getting screwed by big tech.
But we need to follow his advice now more than ever and not trust anyone and especially recognize that Futo needs to be judged distinct from him, bc he may not be there forever and it's not his project per se..
I don't know maybe he will still be affiliated with the company in 20 years but it's hard to say and we don't even really know his role now.
But I do agree that the guy on the left seems a little less trustworthy, just good one I don't know as much about him and two he's disagrees with rossman on a few things that ultimately could become consequential down the road
I'm gonna have to completely disagree with you on this one.
5:02 - This is the current opinion I have.
Free 'libre' software - Free as in freedom. Free of restrictions.
Open source - The source is open to the public.
Free & open source - The source is open to the public and has no licencing restrictions giving users unlimited power.
-Free- & open source - The source is open to the public but includes licencing restrictions that protect the creator.
The only definition that really matters in the end is the one the user gives. If Microsoft uses 'open' as in 'spread butt cheeks ready for a railing', then that's the definition the community will use in the context of Microsoft.
Long time ago software was distributed on disk drives, and released once a year. It was easies to provide the source so users could fix bugs themselves, cos all users was programmers anyway.
Open Source is distribution feature, not tablets with 10 commandments.
Open source wins in foundation software, not in end user software.
I personally believe it's a lack of care from users about their rights and freedoms and I believe you will face similar issues, but I wish you the best with this.
Btw, thanks a lot for changing the term! This has definitely restored a lot of trust.
Multiplayer games is an instance where I prefer closed source over open source.
As a programmer, I always saw “Open Source” as meaning “anyone can see the code,” nothing more than that. I wasn’t even aware of the OSI definition
That's how I've generally seen it used.
"Open source" means you can see the source code.
"Free" means you don't have to pay to use it. Synonymous with "freeware".
"FOSS" means both. May or may not have conditions for modification and redistribution.
"Libre" appears to be a more specific type of FOSS.
You can have a program that's FOSS but still has a separate, closed-source paid version that may share source code with the free version. pfSense is a perfect example of such software.
@@trajectoryunown "free" as in "free speech", not as in "free beer".
There's also FLOSS (Free/Libre Open Source Software), which uses "libre" because it's more clear on the meaning.
Open to view, open to modify, open to redistribute, closed for sale/commercial use.
VMRS - viewable modifiable redistributable source
Commercial use limited software - CULS
Community Source Software - CSS
Candy - give me candy i like candy
@@reed6514 Can't deliver candy over ethernet, but I hope a like and reply will suffice.
Huh? I always thought open source means exactly what it says. The source is available publicly. That's it. I never bothered to look up a definition because I thought that this was obvious.
Guess I was wrong.
But then again, most people also call pretty much anyone who is 30+ years old "boomers" these days. If one knows what "boomer" actually means, one knows that the majority is wrong.
Then again, like Louis says, in a sense, when the majority declares something to mean a certain thing, that makes it not wrong.
Maybe we should discuss the different kinds of "wrong"... 😆
You are not wrong, the word explains itself. Open source, the source is open to the public, not closed off. Open source will be the only word I will use for any program with source available publicly.
Open to view, open to modify, open to redistribute, open to sell.
It's not JUST open to view, which IMO is why "source available" is a common term for projects where viewing is open but other usages are closed.
Hm, I suppose the "also open to modify/redistribute/sell" interpretation does make sense.
The problem is that this might only be understood by a minority even in the tech community. I've starred over 100 projects on GitHub and collected about the same amount on my projects and I'm not sure that I've ever heard "source available" used as something to differentiate from "open source". Which is not to say that it's not worth discussing but I think one should also keep in mind that one also might have to educate millions of developers and possibly convince them to use different terminology.
@@reed6514 The source is open just like I said. What the license permits you to do does not matter.
@@University-ss6fy well you're wrong, but that's okay.
Once a new license comes out and is polished, I'd very much like to use it, I love linux and open source, but I can't stand the idea of Microsoft or Google stealing my code and giving me the middle finger
They are going to do that anyway. And they have a bigger room of lawyers. Microsoft owns github and Google owns the world at thus point.
Finally. And thanks. I still think non-FOSS licenses are non-ethical but at least you're not miss-representing anything anymore.
On the other hand those rug-pull clauses how you call it or CLA how other company are calling them is just sensible way to do in case you'll figure out in future your license is not great fit for your usecase. and at least in case of FOSS licenses I don't think they are a bad thing. It allows you to change license if you need and if software is FOSS and you do a dirty rugpull, the community can always take over.
And about Stallman and `open source`. Stallman wasn't trying to coin nor change of meaning of term `open source`, he doesn't like OSI, Open source, or anything about it.
It seems to me that most developers, me included, always thought that open-source is simply having access to the source code. Further licensing can be different, I never really cared. I always thought that it means that I can build my own version, fork it and use it for free, but the original owner can totally forbid commercial use. I never really cared about idealists, people who master operating systems and brag about their Linux skills, instead of developing applications. Developers want money for their work, it's really that simple. Huge corporations are the place to go for everyone who grew tired of sometimes really toxic open-source community. These people sometimes have problems with understanding basics of how the world works. Being moral and good won't pay my rent, future for my children and retirement. You guys seem to understand it and try to find a very reasonable middle ground. This is a chance for good quality and transparent software made with its users in mind, not B2B partners and users as a product.
ah yes
We need to offer a way for private communication and "reliable" free media for masses as the social revolution is taking over all the developed countries.
I feel like "Accessible Source" might roll off the tongue better and better explain it's intention.
Nice try Louis, the picture covering your face also looks underslept
For me, my license is Louis. I trust him so whatever license he puts in front of me I'll click agree on.
As, not Louis, I can confirm that Louis would not like this mindset.
@@ventilate4267True
Do you trust Louis when Louis tells you not to trust Louis?
@@NeilHaskins That's when I trust him the most!
@@murrethmedia 💀
I own youtube, i mean youtube as my dog, I want people to remind it👶🏼
The only reason for software to be open source is the ease of fixing bugs.
That's not the only reason. It's to also know what the code is actually doing under the hood from a privacy and security perspective.
@@Onyx-it8gk essentially bugs
@@Onyx-it8gk the possibility of forking due to the original project not being worked on or if your own requirements diverge from the upstream project are also important. I have done both many times during my career
@@justfly1984 Open source also includes the ability to fork the codebase and it has happened multiple times where the original project either got mismanaged, unlikable changes were implemented or has been turned propriatary (most infamously, Oracle when they acquired Sun Microsystem and relicensed e.g. Solaris, OpenOffice and MySQL to be propriatary but in turn caused the creation of Illumos, LibreOffice and MariaDB).
machine learning models don't even have source code. this is beyond stupid.
Anybody making money off of free software should be forced by law to give 80-90% of profits made with it to the original author.
That would in turn make it that software not free. Or only "technically free". Also, if the software was made by more than 1 person, they should be in as a "group" to which you'd have to pay. And that doesn't happen all the time that there's a structured legal collective of the developers where there's 1 assigned person on which, should you earn money for your software, you "trust" this person to do their job on paying everyone else.
This is an L take in my opinion.
That is the whole point of the futo license
@@LautaroQ2812its free to use. No free to make money of somebody elses work.
There would be a difference to have a company that does pay support for lets say LibreOffice for businesses. The support makes money off of LibreOffice not by using their code, but selling their expertise. If you take libreoffice and name it AmongusOffice and sell it for $69 monthly with support - you gotta pay
They are paying 50% in taxes :) - you want the rest of the profit?
@@TymexComputingthey can pay their taxes fair and square on their 10%. As if the original author wouldn't pay taxes.
I understand your dillemma, what i will say as this video comes off not as a rug pull, but a warning of a future impending rug pull. The forced arbitration clause didn't help either. Open source is the communism of software, and it doesn't work there either. There is a reason why the right-to-repair movement chose the red fist as the logo.
This “license” has to be the most moronic license I have ever seen. So what if I do want to use any of your software in a commercial setting? I will pay cool, but smoll pp Lois here and his daddy billionaire have the right to outright deny me service, or name an outrageous price to tell me to F off.
This is not about funding developers, this is about smol pp menlets wanting to maintain total control.
Name it “The smol pp License”
You gonna be alright, dude?
@@Lotus-Bloom Sure dude, unlike you I don’t have to glaze balls all day 🤗
@@Lotus-BloomSure thing dude, unlike you I don’t glaze marbles all day 🤗
@@porterhouse937 Stay mad.
@@Lotus-Bloom keep on glazing
Hi. Me Again. Software Developer with 25 years of professional experience working at FANG. You might have seen some of my videos. You deleted my other comment as I can no longer find it.
The license I see is simply unacceptable to me as a developer who is your target demographic. As a software developer, I want to make money, or I want to do good. It would be great to do both but we don't have that opportunity.
Your asking devs like me me to work for you for free and not allowing us to have a fair exchange of value. Your asking us to work for you and write code without being able to leverage it for our own projects. You want us to have only costs for a project, while building up your company for free using our labor. You seem to want to take our work, without paying us, based on a strict reading of the license as it takes away our default rights.
That is unacceptable.
If you really want devs to be the ones making money, why does the license focus on taking away the devs rights?
lmao, you're either a bot or you've just really briefly looked through the video instead of watching it
@@Rojfos no I’m a real person. My problem is that every single license that I’ve seen so far includes a rug pull.
My earlier comment was made about halfway into the video so I’m happy to update it now that I’ve watched the entire thing , the overall impression is that I contribute to a project funded by them, then I’m going to risk losing all access to my contribution and it’s effectively treating me like I’m an employee, giving them the right to take away my access to the source code or project at any time, despite the fact that I’m not going to be allowed to benefit from my contribution by default.
So they’re looking to get all of the benefit of hiring a software development engineer to work on their project, but they’re not giving them value in return or remunerating them in a fair exchange of value.
I don’t think that’s fair.
Two things. Firstly, we don't delete your comments. If you go to my live channel, you'll see a video called RUclips is Fundamentally Broken, where I demonstrate how my own comments do not even show up on my own channel. This is a fundamentally broken platform.
Secondly, we do want our developers to get paid, which is why we are paying them top tier salaries to work on our software. Eron is measuring the success of the organization based on the quality of the software and how many people love it, not on how many code contributions he gets from other developers. We are not asking anybody to work on this software without getting paid lots of money for it. But we are also not measuring our success based on the amount of people who wish to contribute code to it.
I think the core misunderstanding here is you believe that we are asking you to make code contributions or work on our software for free. I don't think we've ever done that. I'm actually pretty damn sure we've never done that.
@@honestduane I'm gonna back Louis on this one, RUclips is a fundamental broken platform that deletes comments, including his own off of his own videos, It seems its here to cause conflict and strife along with destroying the community trust with everyone involved. Don't take it to heart, this is not a platform to actually discuss anything of value.