Summary of "Using the term "open source" - a response to everything!"
Core issue
- Futo released software under a temporary license that included a revocation / “rug pull” clause (ability to revoke access or change the license). That clause was widely criticized and has been removed.
- A broader controversy arose from calling software “open source” while using licenses that restrict commercial use. The team will stop labeling projects “open source” unless they use OSI‑approved licenses. Non‑OSI licenses will be labeled “Source‑first.”
Why this matters
Ethical / moral
- The developer community generally understands “open source” to allow unrestricted commercial use (or at least not to ban commercial use). Using the term otherwise is misleading and harms community trust.
Utilitarian / pragmatic
- Reputation affects hiring, collaboration, and goodwill. Misusing the “open source” label risks alienating contributors and donors; the company cites existing donations and volunteer contributions as reasons to preserve trust.
What the “Source‑first” approach is
- Users can view source, fork, modify, and run the code; the software behaves like an unlimited free trial.
- Commercial redistributions, large-scale bundling, or device OEM inclusion may require paid licensing. The goal is to prevent large companies from bundling and monetizing the software at scale with minimal compensation.
- Three existing Futo projects already use OSI‑approved licenses; other projects will be designated “Source‑first.”
Practical licensing & legal points discussed
- Planned license revisions include:
- Permanently removing the revocation / rug‑pull clause.
- Clarifying commercial licensing negotiation mechanics (bulk/seat discounts, standard licensing talks).
- Adding clearer exit clauses (e.g., what happens on company dissolution) and an “exit valve” to reduce fear of rug pulls.
- Legal counsel has been engaged. The team referenced existing source‑available license families (e.g., Polyform) for comparison.
- An erroneous mandatory arbitration clause in a pre‑release app (Circles) will be removed—likely copied without vetting.
- They acknowledge limits to enforcing “don’t be a jerk” behavior by license text and aim for a legally coherent balance between anti‑abuse measures and community expectations.
Product / feature notes (projects mentioned)
- Gry J (media app)
- Initially distributed under the controversial license.
- Features: view content, creator profile pages, donation/merch links on profiles (no in‑app ads).
- Source viewable; bundling/large‑scale commercial use requires commercial terms.
- Futo Keyboard
- Native keyboard project positioned as a privacy‑focused alternative to Google Gboard.
- Image project
- Uses AGPL (OSI‑approved); an example of Futo projects that are fully “open source” by community definition.
- Circles
- Not yet fully released; previously contained problematic terms (mandatory arbitration) that will be fixed.
- Platform goals
- Allow users to run clients without required cloud services.
- Avoid spyware/adware/trackers.
- Support creator sovereign identity (polycentric).
- Provide donation links without acting as a payment middleman.
Monetization model & developer incentives
- Source‑first model: free/substantial transparency for users; paid commercial licensing for bundling and large OEM usage, negotiated per deal (seat/bulk pricing).
- Honor‑system DRM in some clients: a pragmatic button that marks “I already paid,” relied on community honesty plus legal commercial deals rather than strong technical DRM.
- Programs under consideration to fund developers:
- Fellowships (possibly with housing).
- Bounties for prioritized features.
- Paid engagements.
- Libraries and indirect components remain a revenue challenge; revenue‑share ideas for libraries used in commercial apps were discussed.
Trust, transparency, and anti‑abuse
- Company commitments:
- Publish source.
- Avoid hidden ad/spyware behavior.
- Maintain a “no ads/trackers” principle (one of Aaron’s pillars).
- They welcome community choice: users who require strict OSI/GPL projects should use those alternatives. If the company misbehaves, the source code permits forks to remove undesired behavior.
- The team expects community enforcement (forks, patches) and automated tooling (including AI) to help remove undesirable changes.
Other technical & community topics
- Free software vs. open source: the speakers noted the moral framing of “free software” (Richard Stallman) versus the practical/definitional framing of OSI/“open source”; community norms are the ultimate arbiter.
- Anti‑cheat in games: recognized as an edge case that may require vendor or server‑side restrictions; the team prioritizes user control over the device.
- UX vs. encryption tradeoffs: Signal vs. Telegram were discussed as examples where usability decisions strongly affect adoption.
- Concerns about big tech influence (Microsoft, Google) on open source institutions were noted; community response is seen as the checking mechanism.
Q&A / notable commitments
- Remove the rug‑pull clause (completed) and remove mandatory arbitration in Circles (committed).
- Stop labeling projects “open source” unless they use OSI‑approved licenses; call others “Source‑first.”
- Continue donating to and funding OSS projects to preserve goodwill and community trust.
- Legal review is ongoing; lawyers have been retained to refine licensing language.
- Consider bounties, fellowships, and revenue‑sharing to pay contributors.
Actionable implications for users & developers
- If you require strict OSI‑approved open source licensing for legal or philosophical reasons, use the Futo projects explicitly released under OSI licenses (three projects are already in that category).
- For Source‑first projects:
- You can view, fork, and run the code.
- Check the license before bundling at scale or selling devices with the software preinstalled; commercial redistribution may require a negotiated license.
- Concerned about ads or unwanted changes: source availability enables forks/patches to remove such behavior, but practical effort depends on community resources.
- For commercial partnerships or device bundling: contact Futo to negotiate standard licensing (seat/bulk pricing).
Main speakers / sources
- Lewis — primary speaker; company lead, emphasizes reputation and hiring impacts.
- Aaron — co‑speaker; product/engineering perspective, explained the “source available” / “open source” semantic view.
- Referenced: Richard Stallman (quoted regarding free software vs open source distinctions).
Category
Technology
Share this summary
Is the summary off?
If you think the summary is inaccurate, you can reprocess it with the latest model.
Preparing reprocess...