He called a liscence that doesnt allow redistribution that changes the donation link or copying the branding “open source”, which it is it’s just a bit more restrictive
danb.me’s criticisms and tone are valid, but it looks FUTO has taken down their ill-advised license page and are using an unmodified AGPL.
I’m struggling to assign malice here; Louis is a hardware guy, and not every software person is really up on what distinguishes free software from freeware. FUTO seems like a pretty small shop; I’d give them a pass on this one.
Open source just means access to the source code. […]
What is wrong with this company? How do you have the thought and then follow all the way through with it, that you need an own definition of a commonly used word? That’s just being obtuse and annoying.
This is a repost. Also, like, do we need to keep spamming Beehaw’s tech section with headlines that reference rape as like, a casual way to say that a company did something dishonest? Cause I’m not really into it.
Like, seriously, is there a creepier version of this headline?