Yesterday, there was a live scheduled by Louis Grossman, titled “Addressing futo license drama! Let’s see if I get fired…”. I was unable to watch it live, but now the stream seems to be gone from YouTube.

Did it air and was later removed? Or did it never happen in the first place?

Here’s the link to where it was meant to happen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTBYMobWQzk

Cheers

Edit: a new video was recently posted at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCjy2CHP7zU

I do not know if this was the supposedly edited and reuploaded video or if this is unrelated.

  • jarfil@beehaw.org
    7·
    4 days ago

    From the first 15 min of the edited video: that FUTO boss is an embarrassment, good on Rossman to get him to change things.

    I don’t really want to watch the remaining hour, after someone says things like:

    • He didn’t follow the discussions back in the 2000s
    • OSI didn’t hijack the “open source” definition
    • Less than 1000 people would care
    • Asked his programmers, and they didn’t care

    I call BS. Weak excuses.

    There is a reason people say “FLOSS” instead of “Open Source”. There is a reason Stallman says what he says. There is a reason you can tell apart who understands what’s going on, by whether they understand the differences or not.

    A quick reminder:

    • Free - as in beer, not as in freedom
    • Libre - as in freedom
    • Open Source - you can see the source code

    Stallman created the GPL to allow people to see (open) and change (libre) the code (source)… then “pay forward” that freedom, in echange for being able to charge money (non-free) for their contributions.

    He often referred to it as simply “Open Source”… which turned out to be a mistake. Very soon (as in pre-1990), it became clear that there were two more competing camps for the “Open Source” definition:

    • Academia - people who got paid anyway, whether they saw a penny from their software or not
    • Business - who wanted to get as much money as possible, for as cheap as possible

    Both those camps aligned with licenses where developers gave up all their rights, but anyone could very easily take them back and claim as their own (“closing” the software). Famous examples are Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, etc.

    The “Open Source Initiative” was created to gatekeep the “Open Source” definition, by keeping a list of licenses that were “OSI compliant”. A side effect of that gatekeeping, was erasing the understanding of the terms “Free” and “Libre” from the public’s minds.

    Plenty more than “1000 people” understood what was going on, and were against OSI, seeing it as an EEE move from the Business camp.

    People new to it, started using the term “open source” (as per OSI) without a care, only to later realize the Business camp was taking advantage of them… [surprised Pikachu face]

    This FUTO boss is not young or inexperienced, he’s a Business-man who, not surprisingly, decided to use a license with a closing clause, that he used the chance to call “Open Source” by exploiting people’s lack of understanding.

    • Lemongrab@lemmy.one
      6·
      5 days ago

      I watched it and I thought it was alright. I have no context for anything outside the video but what he said seems to make sense. Idk anything about FUTO other than they are at least source available for their apps which is enough to be able to inspect their claims about privacy and security.

      My take on non-profit source available licenses (I know nothing just stream of thought):
      I am I’m favor of an “open” source license minus profiting off of your forks, which I understand makes the resulting license not open source. In a capitalist system, the capitalist class will take every opportunity to parasitically take where ever possible. Nothing free in a capitalist system, including living. Free development comes at a cost, even iif made purely out of passion.

      Most of the code I will ever publish will be open source, with the exception of some big and very unique passion projects that I wish to stay nonprofit. Any person who forks it owns their code, but is limited to donations (just in the same way I’d adhere to the license). Source available at least means people can inspect it for badware, which is good for privacy and security. Allowing forking and community collaboration is important. But some greedy corporation stealing your code without contributing back is gross. In an ideal world we wouldn’t care about the perceived costs to our time by developing and releasing code for free because money would play no part in our ability to continue existing or as a way to measure our “worth”. Why freely enable thier behaviour just to maintain some pure ideological boundaries. They dont deserve to profit off of our labor and passion.

      • onlinepersona@programming.dev
        4·
        5 days ago

        I am I’m favor of an “open” source license minus profiting off of your forks, which I understand makes the resulting license not open source. In a capitalist system, the capitalist class will take every opportunity to parasitically take where ever possible. Nothing free in a capitalist system, including living. Free development comes at a cost, even iif made purely out of passion.

        💯

        I don’t get why people still believe they have to gatekeep the open source definition or how to prevent capitalists from exploiting free labour.

        Life and circumstances aren’t static. They are constantly evolving. Just because capitalists treated open source as a threat, back when it was created, doesn’t mean they didn’t learn how to exploit it and those who work on it. They do now and it’s only natural to evolve and try to find a way to protect from such exploitation.

        To stand still and point fingers at others trying to move forward is conservative, the exact opposite of progress.

        Anti Commercial-AI license

    • T (they/she)@beehaw.org
      4·
      6 days ago

      I don’t know why he has so many followers. I think it is just because he says what people want to hear, but it doesn’t have any depth to it.

      Nothing against him personally, I just think he’s annoying and also has some entrepreneur vibes that I hate. I am grateful for the right to repair activism, but the latest videos that I watched were just shallow complaining. Justified of course but… yeah.

      • macniel@feddit.de
        2·
        6 days ago

        The thing is, some need to publicly complain/call out shitty behaviour of our corporate masters. Now paired with someone who has quite the reach makes this even better so that unaware peeps notice this as well.

  • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
    8·
    6 days ago

    Watching the video.

    Source First - source available - that’s what they do, good term.

    I do like the discussion and the motivation illustrated

    I now have a better feeling for how futo is trying to do open source capitalism

  • CameronDev@programming.dev
    9·
    7 days ago

    I saw a 1.5hr video published a few hours ago, dunno if it got removed. Description did say it would be edited and reuploaded.

  • h3ndrik@feddit.de
    5·
    6 days ago

    I’d be interested, too, if he and FUTO got to terms with their community and if they learned how licensing and trademarks work… Last thing I remember he claimed lots if things that weren’t true. And FUTO didn’t really address anything.

    • The Hobbyist@lemmy.zipOP
      2·
      6 days ago

      I don’t know if the content is of particular interest to everyone, but I did want to follow the topic as it was a source of disagreement between FUTO and Rossman and I wanted to see whether they had come to terms.

      Do you have a copy of the now deleted/removed video, or are you referring to a videoviseo which is now publicly available? If it is now publicly available, is it at the same link as my edited original post or something else? Thanks!