Basically, what the title says. Do you use any app, that is proprietary, but either has no OSS alternatives or they’re all not good enough? If there is an alternative, what keeps you from switching?
Basically, what the title says. Do you use any app, that is proprietary, but either has no OSS alternatives or they’re all not good enough? If there is an alternative, what keeps you from switching?
It is not. FUTO calls it “source first” which just means “open source but with rules against bad actors”. Certainly far from proprietary.
It is not open source, because it does not meet the definition of open source.
If the license doesn’t meet the OSD and does not protect four freedoms, then it is not open-source.
It is by FUTO’s definition.
Jokes aside, I find that attitude not very healthy. Whether you want to call it open source or not, as I said, it’s far from proprietary, and certainly more than just source available. Dismissing it for that reason is quite unreasonable.
FUTO changing the definition of open source to suit their business model is like that time US Congress decided that pizza was a vegetable because it has tomato sauce.
FUTO’s EULA may superficially resemble a true free software license (and may be good enough for you, personally) but it fundamentally undermines core tenets of the free software movement in order to preserve their business interests. All pseudo-FOSS licenses (whether of the “ethical” or the “business” variety) do this, because they prioritize the interests of the rightsholder above those of the community and the user. If important free software projects like Linux and Firefox were released under this license the free software world as we know it would not be possible.
As proprietary licenses go, it’s certainly far from the worst.
That was silly yeah because a Tomato is a fruit not a vegetable lol
Calling a source-available license “not proprietary”, this is what not very healthy.
“Source-first” or “fair code” are just a fancy ways to say “proprietary”.