this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
154 points (95.8% liked)
Technology
81611 readers
4451 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
FUTO license proposes to actually generate income for "source available" developers. It's worked out very well for open source Immich.
Except immich actually uses the AGPLv3
Yes I did say open source.
You named a supposed benefit of what FUTO tries to accomplish with their licensing, but gave an example of a project that has a broadly used license, not specific to FUTO.
The term open source has lost its original meaning for some time now.
Which is why using it should be considered harmful and everyone should say "Free Software" instead.
That is more confusing since free software is a double entendre. The software could be monetarily free, or it could be free to use for development. I think the best way to move forward is to make active attempts to distinguish open source, ie freely modifiable code, & source available, ie code can be viewed but not modified. There are probably some shortfalls here and I would love to hear them, but this is what I have been doing when I talk about software.