Free and Open Source Software

17779 readers

11 users here now

If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Gaywallet@beehaw.org

alyaza@beehaw.org

Florp, the Firefox fork with an awful name, is fully source-available again (github.com)

submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by Aatube@kbin.melroy.org to c/foss@beehaw.org

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The repository for the previously private submodule is still called Floorp-private-components, though it's public.

https://blog.ablaze.one/4125/2024-03-11/ is a maintainer's official response to... Reddit, which crossposted me apparently. Hooray!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] bloup@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

The license looks to be Creative Commons non-commercial, which means it isn’t open source, only source-available.

To be clear: the license chosen prohibits anyone who forks floorp and includes these extra bits from trying to make money from it, but the developer still intends on publishing the source code so it can still be scrutinized.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 13 points 6 months ago

Amended title. CC really isn't something one should be using for source code

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Honest question: How is CC-BY-NC not open source?

[–] d_k_bo@feddit.de 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

The Open Source Definition

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That’s one of many definitions.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's also the most-accepted one.

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 1 points 5 months ago

It doesn’t appear to be.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

TL;DR: Open source is meant to be open as in open for any use

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But it is open for any use.

[–] starman@programming.dev 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

NC in CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 stands for non-commercial

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yea, I know. The license doesn’t restrict use. Anyone can use the software for any purpose. They just can’t sell it.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Commercial use is use

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 2 points 5 months ago

No, commercial exploitation is assumed ownership. It isn’t use. Open source is not CC0 — or at least that’s not the only possible open source license.

BTW, I agree that, in this case, the dev is just throwing a tantrum over using the wrong license for his earlier work.