←back to thread

Grayjay Desktop App

(grayjay.app)
512 points pierrelf | 1 comments | 20 Dec 24 17:33 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
josephcsible ◴[20 Dec 24 21:56 UTC] No.42475448[source]▶
Please remove "Also available on FDroid" from the page. This app is not available on F-Droid and isn't allowed to be added to it since it isn't open source.
replies(5): >>42475504 #>>42475580 #>>42475614 #>>42476839 #>>42478042 #
ASalazarMX ◴[20 Dec 24 22:02 UTC] No.42475504[source]▶
Indeed, it is "Source First" license, dev(s) reasoning here: https://futo.org/about/futo-statement-on-opensource/
replies(1): >>42478899 #
globular-toast ◴[21 Dec 24 10:54 UTC] No.42478899[source]▶
They make a very good case against corporate-friendly licences like MIT/BSD, which I definitely agree with, but say nothing about why they don't use AGPL. Honestly I think the problem with A/GPL is that they are considered "uncool". You just can't use them, because reasons.

Who decides what is cool? That's right, the marketing departments of huge corporations...

replies(1): >>42479450 #
xmcqdpt2 ◴[21 Dec 24 13:10 UTC] No.42479450{3}[source]▶
AGPL would still allow a third party to fork their code and create a commercial product out of it, which is what they are opposed to.

The AGPL only requires that the host also provides their code.

replies(1): >>42479660 #
globular-toast ◴[21 Dec 24 13:49 UTC] No.42479660{4}[source]▶
No, it also requires that it's licensed under the AGPL, meaning the users get free software.
replies(1): >>42483704 #
1. xmcqdpt2 ◴[22 Dec 24 01:17 UTC] No.42483704{5}[source]▶
Right yes, provide their code licensed under AGPL, it's an important distinction, thanks.

What it doesn't ban people from doing is selling a service, which is different from their license that allows only non-commercial uses.