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.
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.
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.