317
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
317 points (93.2% liked)
Open Source
31111 readers
301 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The futo temporary license is not very open at all. Yes you can view the source code, but the license can be revoked at any time. So this is basically source available for auditing, but no community should use this code / project to build any modifications, or forks, or anything contributing to the ecosystem.
It's great that futo is innovating, but I want to make it clear its not open source by the standard meaning.
Maybe a better term for this type of "source viewable" closed project would be "source verifiable"
(Duplicating my comment from another thread on this subject)
I call it "museum source": look, but don't touch
I like it
Came here to say the same thing. The license isn't good at all. What this 100% lead to is, if they succeed with their goals, and a couple years down the line have become the de-facto way to consume content, they will follow the enshittification route. They will close their source and start extracting payment from the creators to be listed or promoted. We've seen this game so many times. Just recently terraform also closed their source, but at least the terraform developers could fork it. You won't be able to do so with this app.
I am all for a software that does the same thing but is fully FOSS. This is the only way to get out of the enshittification loop we're stuck in.
CEO's statement:
Yeah, this doesn't fill me with confidence whatsoever they're not going to rugpull down the line. This is just empty words when their actual license prevents one from being the "master of your computer once again".
So how else would you combat malicious forks like what happened to new pipe? Honest question, I like this standard even if there are always more truly open source licenses, if this could become a standard that helps prevent bad actors from taking advantage of less savy users that's a big win to me and a move in the right direction all while being able to see the source code download it modify if i deem fit and install it. Perfect is the enemy of progress. What's your solution?
What happened to newpipe is the fault of Google's police's not allowing an official newpipe, not of Foss. The same issue can happen with this software just as well. There's plenty of Foss which doesn't have this issue, like Firefox
Ok but if Google is not willing to support this effort, like I asked what's your solution besides just letting it happen? Because that's not gonna spark confidence for mass adoption to move away from these bloated ad and tracker filled mainstream apps. You need to have steps for progress and this allows more control when those who are publishing said knock off applications in their store will not.
It doesn't matter whose fault it is.
If the same thing happens with this software, they will have it taken down. That's why the license exists.
Nice edit.
The reason why this happens only to newpipe and not to other Foss software like Firefox is because Google prevents an official newpipe on the app store. The could do the same with this app and license or not they'd have the same problem
No, it doesn't?
Trademarks. Anyone malicious can take your source-available code anyway, but if they infringe on your trademark by calling it "Firefox" or "Newpipe", you are legally in your right to take it down. Trademarks deal with fraud; copyright doesn't.
Iceweasel is a classic example of what happens when free software projects like Firefox seek to defend their trademark. They didn't want to allow Debian to use the Firefox name, as that may cause users to attribute quality problems to Mozilla when Debian is actually responsible because of the patches they had made.
Want to remove an app using the GrayJay name without your permission if it's a registered trademark? Here's a link to report it to Google Play.
"Viewable source" is the correct term I believe.
Good to know, but how come in the video he talks about letting people modify it as they please? If its only "viewable" then this doesn't hold up? Or am I missing something?
I believe the intent of the license is to protect against someone just reskinng it and selling it for $14.99 as their own thing.
Privately, we can do whatever we want, but don't redistribute it for profit or with malware.
Seems reasonable to me.
If you actually watch the OP, he talks about this. They don't want the app to be copied and then have ads and tracking injected and then slapped onto the Play Store to exploit users like NewPipe has right now.
The issue here isn't open source, its that google forbids newpipe to be in the play store, so there is a artificial market gap created by googles policies. These clones exist because google takes time to remove apps, such as newpipe clones.
The cloners are exploiting bureaucratic inefficiency, and they are providing a service the play store users, making forbidden software available to them, even if temporarily.
The real solution should be to get the app stores to be neutral, but thats not a fight any of us can win, I realize.
I think it's the "temporary" part of the licence where the trouble comes. Yes, you're allowed to do whatever you want privately...until you're not. I mean Louis Rossman is (in my view) a very trustworthy individual, so "trust me bro" legitimately does carry a lot of weight when he's involved on the project, but "we can take away your licence at any time for no reason at all" is not something seen in the open source world.
Yeah that seems fair
Intentions are one thing, but going by the license as written is another thing.
Yeah, but the FUTO group did that to avoid possible forks being made with ads, trackers and malware, like what happened to Newpipe.
They do accept contributions in the form of plugins, which I think is a very clever way of doing it, while keeping the project closed to bad actors.
I’ve personally already downloaded it. Pretty excited to see this project succeed!
Seems weird to be against the one major selling point of free and open source software (anyone can fork it and scratch their own itch), but then claim to be open source.
Anyway, to each their own, I'm glad you like it!
Seems pretty natural for me considering one of the points of open source software is to try and get away from trackers malware and bloated ad experiences so you can see directly what you are running, making sure your product is not able to be abused in that way promotes more open source initiatives while allowing the owners to make sure any changes jive with the original intent of their open source software. You are free to modify all you like so long as you don't distribute a forked version with ads, malware or trackers. They cover this very clearly.
I think the main point is, this makes it unavailable in F-Droid and everyone else unable to build upon, use or adapt it for their own use-cases except for the specific ones outlined by FUTO. It's source-available software. Not free software. And it has other downsides, too. Once YouTube starts cracking down on third-party apps and the companies behind it, it's gone for good. yt-dl has demonstrated free software offers more resilience in those cases.
And I'd argue it's ineffective. Having a license forbid malicious use will only stop the honest people from using it. The bad players will probably not care. But that's debatable.
(No hate on the FUTO team. It's their hard work and livelihood and if that's the licence they want, that's fine. This is just my personal opinion.)
If they're just trying to avoid a NewPipe situation, the licence is more heavy-handed than it has to be. NewPipe is GPLv3, which has provisions in it for preventing forks from using certain names or logos or identifying marks. The NewPipe team chose not to (or neglected to) use those specific provisions in the GPL. But it's perfectly within their right to add to the licence information "You are not allowed to use the words 'new' or 'pipe' or use the letter P stylized as a triangle in a logo. The GPL makes a provision for these sorts of restrictions to automatically void the licence even for the case where none of those things are legally trademarked. (I'm not a lawyer and it's probably an open question as to how a court would enforce that clause, but my suspicion is it's probably enough to get Google to suspend violators from the Play Store at the very least. Probably you'd want to go to the trouble of trademarking them to be safe)
Link to the license
The difference between "open source" and "FOSS" has already been discussed to death: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
Don't equate the two terms; they're not the same. You can argue that they should be the same, but unfortunately it's too late. Words are all made up and they mean what people decide they mean. In this case, "open source" means that the source is open, and nothing more.
Unreal engine is source available, and you don't see anyone calling it open source.