I just downloaded and have been loving this. It loads pretty quickly, navigation is intuitive, and I’ll finally stop forgetting that Nebula exists because it’ll all be in my one big subscription feed.
Since I’m new to moving over to open source, I want to ask the veterans: is this as incredible as it seems right now, or is there something I’m missing?
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)
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:
We’ll probably do a Q+A on this sometime soon.
- We believe it’s essential that all of the software that people run on their computers be open to scrutiny by the owner of the computer.
- We believe that software developers should be payed directly by the people who use their software.
- We want others coders to be able to pick up and maintain abandoned projects into the future.
We don’t have all the answers, but I personally am very unhappy with the state of open source software. We have billions of people running polished open source software on their Android and iOS devices with all sorts of nefarious hidden software attached by Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.
So we’re not gonna just run with status quo. We want to win by letting the people be masters their computers once again.
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”.
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.
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, 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.
(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)
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.
Am I the only one who is put off by the way this is presented? It might be a great app, I’m not judging that, but seeing it shared in Lemmy via a hype YouTube video (“we made something amazing, wow!”) makes me wary. No objective text description, no link to their project website. Not even a name in this post!
It was the same 2 weeks ago when people were sharing the same kind of hype video about their speech-to-text tool (which they called a “Voice app”).
Edit: edited text to make clear I was talking mainly about the Lemmy post, not the video (although the video screenshot also looks like clickbait).
They do link to the sourde code and the website in the video description.
The lemmy post could be better, though.
Yes, I was taking about the Lemmy post. I didn’t open the video link (for the reasons explained above). Thanks for sharing this info.
Louis Rossman is usually legit, but I definetly understand your wearyness. OP should do better.
Apologies for the silly question - by presented, do you mean this text post here on Lemmy, or the YT video?
If you mean this lemmy post, this is how everyday people share content IMO, it isn’t detailed but all the info we need is behind the YT link. OP could also just be excited about the app and thought others already knew about it, like I did but hadn’t realised it’s out now.
I meant the Lemmy post. Don’t apologise, I see that my comment was not very clear.
I know that’s how many people share things, but it’s not (yet) common in software communities. If I am introducing a new app I will write a description of what it does, add links to its website, source code, developer’s site… and finally a video if I have one.
I haven’t checked the video, but the screenshot that accompanies this post (We made a better Revanced!) looks like low quality clickbait too.
My bad! I’m not super deep in any software community, just an excited app user who wanted to check with you all to make sure it was as good as it seemed before I fully committed to the app and pitched in the optional $9.99.
To be honest I still can’t confidently explain what the app does aside from the broad strokes in the title (outside of a little HTML I’m just a disabled author watching shows to pass the time) which is why I linked the video that explained it to me, so I’ll run any questions I have for you guys through my coding friend in the future.
Thanks to everyone who looked past it to give their opinions, and sorry for the potential clickbait scare, haha!
Holy shit this is great. So it’s not FOSS, but it is OSS. And they’re not forcing you to pay, they’re just asking, without DRM or anything.
I installed it, hooked up my YouTube and Nebula accounts, and it works fine. It’s a LOT more stable than I expected. Odyssee works too, and no crashes yet. I immediately paid the $10 for a license. I love the stuff Louis does, and I’m absolutely willing to fund it.
Why isn’t it FOSS? The licence is clearly a quick and dirty fix. But it’s clear, that a libre approach is being made.
Please do not automatically equate FOSS with “free as in beer”/gratis.
It isn’t free and open source software, because it’s not contributing to the ecosystem, if this company goes out of business, nobody can pick up the code and keep modifying it. It’s just like closed source software in that regard.
The license includes an immediate revocation clause, so if anybody does build anything with this anyway, the license could be pulled away.
The license explicitly does not allow modifications and distribution of the modifications.
So it’s source available, source viewable, museum source… But it is not open source as most people understand it. It’s not part of the ecosystem that people can use as Legos to build the next project.
It’s fine, it’s a commercial venture, and I wish them the best success, but it is not open source. RMS would not approve.
The License is clearly not Free by imposing restrictions to e.g. commercial vs non-commertial usage or distribution. It also restricts usage of name and logo aswell as terminating the license when legal action is taken against the provider.
While i can understand the reasoning, the license still stands against FOSS.
I believe you could have clearly separated them as provider and the software like its done in most cases. By wanting to protect their software, they had to restrict the License, so its no longer Free to use in any form you’d want.
As far as I can tell, their temporary nonfree license only really affects people interested in making money from redistribution, and potential bad actors.
Privacy enthusiasts and individuals who want to mod it for their own personal use are pretty much unaffected AFAICT. Although I prefer FOSS software, this license honestly has no downside I can see for individuals like ourselves, unless I’m missing something
Ross man has some really good takes. He’s also kinda annoying and also has some total shit takes. This video was alright but I don’t expect this to last very long. It seems a little sus tbh. Also like others have pointed out, it’s not really open source. That said it’s cool that you can view the source code online.
It is absolutely open source, simply because the definition of “open source” is vague and poorly defined. That’s why we have stricter definitions, like FOSS, and this is definitely not FOSS. They’re pretty transparent about that, and they made their reasons clear, whether you like them or not. But GrayJay’s source is open; you can audit it, download it, and even compile it yourself if you want. So please don’t say it’s “not really open source” because that’s false.
That’s a good read. But the discussion over the true meaning of open source, foss, libre etc is ongoing and has never been settled so please don’t pretend some blog post by richard stallman is the end of the discussion. He’s not the one to base your opinions as fact off of. In the first place, open source/libre/foss began largely due to unix v bsd, and opposition to licenses that invite that kind of litigation are properly viewed with suspicion and other even stronger feelings. And it goes without saying that licenses like that are like a landlord promising you he’ll fix the shower, get rid of the cockroaches, and fix the leaky ceiling, but only once you’ve signed the lease.
Aside from that, I’m sure you’re aware of how trendy it is to be open source, and how lots of vaporware companies start off with licenses just like this, go proprietary, enshittify and quickly die off, leaving a community built software in the hands of vulture capital.
So it’s a good read but it’s not the last word, nor does it speak to the actual heart of the discussion
You can find the open source definition here:
That is a definition proposed in 2006 by one organization (The Open Source Initiative) that has little authority on the matter. Open source software in various forms existed LONG before 2006, so unfortunately they can’t retcon what it has always meant. Here’s some light reading on the subject, courtesy of Richard Stallman: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
tl;dr: Don’t say “open source” if you really mean FOSS.
This is the “Open Source” community, not the “FOSS” community. If you’re going to hang around here, you should familiarize yourself with the difference between the two.
After reading your comment it looks like youre not that bright hey. Life must be really tough for ya 🥲
Uhhhhh I also disagree with @MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works, but I want to make clear that it’s for different reasons and I’m not associated with this moron.
