Apparently in the past day, they’ve removed all the logos from the Microgrants projects and clarified that the grants are unsolicited
Apparently in the past day, they’ve removed all the logos from the Microgrants projects and clarified that the grants are unsolicited
It’s a big disappointment because the facial recognition is great, meaning that they could be doing bad things behind the scene. They could have a backdoor so their buddies could check to see if you’re Hispanic or non-white. That’s just one thing. Could is not is. But its enough to make me stop and think of uninstalling.
It’s still open source, not sure where this is coming from
It’s coming from technical ignorance. There’s little wrong with FUTOs license, here are the limitations:
First the good:
Yes, good, I don’t want Google using my code to make billions.
And the not so good:
Bad. If I forked and majorly modified the code by significant contribution, I don’t see why my release should have a “donate” link to the original producer and not for my efforts the donor is actually using. This is the same problem the first limitation seeks to address, but from a different angle; namely: monetizing “intellectual property” instead of work.
Copyleft is cool because it means freedom, but everyone in here fighting because code first prevents them from potentially monetizing the projects they like is completely missing the point of copyleft.
If you ask them to articulate their concern, I haven’t heard one that isn’t on the lines of “I want to be able to use this code in my paid product”…
As others have said, you’re changing the topic talking about FUTO’s license in a response to a comment about the AGPL.
But to continue your thread:
I specifically want anyone to be allowed to use any and all FOSS software I write (and I do write and publish some) commercially, so long as they abide by the terms of the license I choose. (Typically the AGPLv3.)
If, for instance, a mainstream commercial consumer electronics device incorporated my code into the firmware and because my code is under the AGPLv3, end users had the legal right to demand the means to modify the behavior of their devices to better suit them, I’d be thrilled.
Plus, if a company with an IT department is distributing a modified version of my code, that might well include some improvements generally useful for all/most/many users of my project. And if my projects is under the AGPLv3, I can demand a copy of the source code of their modified version and incorporate any improvements back upstream into my project so all users of my FOSS project can benefit from it.
Commercial redistribution is more of a feature than you think. I think you’re missing the point of copyleft.
Immich uses AGPL-3.0 license, so nothing you said is applicable
I said nothing about immich, the commenter you replied to seems to think because immich is under futo it’ll somehow start collecting your data. If immich was using the futo license, literally nothing will change about how we use it… People are freaking out and inventing ridiculous scenarios and they don’t understand what they’re objecting to (FUTO’s license).
The person I’m replying to said nothing about the license, only talked about immich the application. If you want to speak about the futo license ok, but understand just changing the topic isn’t a good way to start a conversation.
This whole thread is about the FUTO license… And the fear about immich is stemming from not understanding it.
Your comment, that I replied to, was specifically about the immich’s license…
You’re being a bit ridiculous, and weirdly combative since I was not disagreeing with you at all.
No. The person I’m replying to talks about a backdoor, which makes no sense as you can see the source code. The license behind it is not mention anywhere.
I’m not combative, you have a bone to pick with FUTO and are making up excuses to complain.
A backdoor in what, exactly?? Please do some research into the programs you’re running so you can base your opinions on that knowledge rather than vibes.