Comments by "Gilad Barlev" (@GSBarlev) on "FUTO Does Not Support Open Source And That's OK" video.

  1. We thought the Primagen interview was a big deal. Imagine if Brodie got to talk with Rossmann for two hours!
    36
  2. Minecraft Java is de facto "source available," as Mojang even publishes their own de-obfuscators. I don't know if this has ever been legally codified, but their attitude has been: "You can alter the code" (through mods) "as long as you don't publish the original code, and as long as you don't sell your mods," and even that last bit hadn't been enforced, as a bunch of mods these days are locked down—either in early access or completely—behind Patreon paywalls.
    16
  3. GJ mentioned. Inb4 this video gets delisted. 😂
    11
  4. If your concern is large corporations running off with your software, the solution isn't non-commercial clauses, it's copyleft. I've started licensing all my projects under AGPL, which is probably the most aggressive copyleft license, as it requires anyone using your code in a SaaS context to make the full source¹ available to all users of the service, but honestly I'd be fine going even harder and forcing companies to disclose not just the changes they made to my code but the configuration settings they used to execute it. Or add a requirement enforcing the full disclosure of any data collection. None of that would limit the freedoms of people and corporations to use and further develop my software, it would just prevent them from limiting the freedoms of their customers. ¹I'm actually not sure how far that extends—does it only apply if they modify my code? Does it apply to wrappers written around my code or portions of the application that call my code as a microservice?
    4