So software engineers at a startup are trying to make money by telling normies to have a Linux server for privacy? You can grift people by just telling them how to avoid Google and Apple?https://redscarepodcast.libsyn.com/austism
>>108450199why are you trying to make me angry about someone making money by leading the normie cattle to salvation?
Its not FOSS, but I can't get mad about someone asking for OPTIONAL payment for open source software
>>108450199What are you talking about? The company seems to just be a way for Eron Wolf to send money to projects. I don't know who that is, but Sam Hyde follows him so he can't be that bad.
>>108450199FUTO is crap because of their licence.The FUTO Source First licence is anti developer and anti external contributions.With no developers you get no software.The licence is actually proprietary and a cuck licence (even more so than MIT). If you submit patches, fork the project, add new features, etc, you cannot make money off of it (as in asking for donations or paid versions), you cannot change the licence, the original developer (FUTO) gets to keep all the money and code ownership, and you can't remove the functionalities that allow payments to FUTO.>You may modify the software only for non-commercial purposes>You may distribute the software or any part of its source code only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposesThis part of the licence counts as proprietary (according to both the FSF and OSI definitions)One concrete problem is that if it becomes abandonware or just goes in a direction you don't like it, forks are basically impossible to flourish, either because of legal reasons or developer ethics.Source-available licences are proprietary licences since it doesn't give you freedom.It is also an illegal licence in many jurisdictions such as the EU. A (optionally) paid licence with no warranty is illegal.>>108450543It's worse, there are many other restrictions.>>108450698They are trying to spread their proprietary cuck licence, not to send money to projects. They could have done that already.
>>108450199 >>108450323 >>108450543>>108450698 >>108450984FUTO software functions under a proprietary license despite public source access. The terms restrict commercial redistribution and modification which contravenes established Open Source Initiative and Free Software Foundation definitions. Additionally the lack of reproducible binaries prevents independent verification that the distributed executable matches the published code. You must therefore classify this technology as vendor controlled source available software rather than free software. This status requires greater trust in the provider regarding security and continuity compared to community governed alternatives.You can find actually safe FOSS software alternatives by searching F-Droid (for example https://f-droid.org/en/packages/dev.patrickgold.florisboard/ )
