A lot of the people complaining about the license don’t get this. Also doubly surprised at those saying they won’t use it because the license doesn’t allow them to redistribute the app with malware, or charge money for it 🤦♂️
I’m also completely baffled at the amount of people here who have never heard of Louis Rossmann… literally the dude behind Right to Repair
saying they won’t use it because the license doesn’t allow them to redistribute the app with malware, or charge money for it
They won’t use it because the licence creates an inbalance of power, so the creator of the app have more control than the actual user. An app/program is just an set of instructions how to do something.
Why not charge for it? If you just copied and not make anything new noone is going to give you money anyway, while taking something and selling after improvements is literally how all buissness always worked. Maybe except mining or haunting.
As for malware, I bet creator of malware won’t be suddenly stopped by a licence text.
They won’t use it because the licence creates an inbalance of power, so the creator of the app have more control than the actual user. An app/program is just an set of instructions how to do something.
A user is not affected at all by the license IMO, unless they intend to redistribute the app or code, although I do see where you are coming from with the imbalance of power thing
Why not charge for it? If you just copied and not make anything new noone is going to give you money anyway
Chinese clones do this all the time to all sorts of products, and they sell very very well. This even happened to Prusa, the 3D printer manufacturer. Their OSS firmware is being used in clones sold on Aliexpress for half the price
taking something and selling after improvements is literally how all buissness always worked
I agree. I’d rather give the original creator money if the person reselling/redistributing isn’t adding tangible value to the product or app, but in most cases (except the clone example above) people tend to add value, like yt-dlp adding a TON of extractors, or NewPipe SponsorBlock integrating a bunch of new features
As for malware, I bet creator of malware won’t be suddenly stopped by a licence text.
The community would also make it pretty well known that a malware ridden version of the app is floating around IMO, rendering it useless. And there’s also Play Protect which deletes apps it doesn’t like from devices without asking the user, like it did for legitimate copies of KDE Connect that were installed from outside the Play Store
My point of view is from being interested in CS, math and overall collective making. I just love computers and want them to be accessible from the bottom as a matter of principle. So I’ll wait until open source app arrive (or they change licence), because I don’t need them as much.
But for people that needs apps like those developed by FUTO, it’s a huge success they can avoid Google.
A lot of the people complaining about the license don’t get this. Also doubly surprised at those saying they won’t use it because the license doesn’t allow them to redistribute the app with malware, or charge money for it 🤦♂️
I’m also completely baffled at the amount of people here who have never heard of Louis Rossmann… literally the dude behind Right to Repair
They won’t use it because the licence creates an inbalance of power, so the creator of the app have more control than the actual user. An app/program is just an set of instructions how to do something.
Why not charge for it? If you just copied and not make anything new noone is going to give you money anyway, while taking something and selling after improvements is literally how all buissness always worked. Maybe except mining or haunting.
As for malware, I bet creator of malware won’t be suddenly stopped by a licence text.
A user is not affected at all by the license IMO, unless they intend to redistribute the app or code, although I do see where you are coming from with the imbalance of power thing
Chinese clones do this all the time to all sorts of products, and they sell very very well. This even happened to Prusa, the 3D printer manufacturer. Their OSS firmware is being used in clones sold on Aliexpress for half the price
I agree. I’d rather give the original creator money if the person reselling/redistributing isn’t adding tangible value to the product or app, but in most cases (except the clone example above) people tend to add value, like yt-dlp adding a TON of extractors, or NewPipe SponsorBlock integrating a bunch of new features
The community would also make it pretty well known that a malware ridden version of the app is floating around IMO, rendering it useless. And there’s also Play Protect which deletes apps it doesn’t like from devices without asking the user, like it did for legitimate copies of KDE Connect that were installed from outside the Play Store
Yeah, I agree.
My point of view is from being interested in CS, math and overall collective making. I just love computers and want them to be accessible from the bottom as a matter of principle. So I’ll wait until open source app arrive (or they change licence), because I don’t need them as much. But for people that needs apps like those developed by FUTO, it’s a huge success they can avoid Google.