I am very new to linux and all the open source stuff (my first post on lemmy actually) so I don’t get how this stuff works but flathub is saying that floorp is proprietary. But after a quick google search it says that floorp is open source licensed under MPL 2.0
You must log in or register to comment.
It used to be open source, but large parts of it have been relicensed under their proprietary source-available shared source license. The reason why it isn’t entirely proprietary is that it’s based on Firefox, which is entirely licensed under the MPL. The weak copyleft of the MPL states that all parts lifted from Firefox must remain open source, but the new parts can be proprietary.
Source-available licenses are a type of proprietary license where the code is made public for people to look at, but you’re not actually allowed to use it. Users can still contribute upstream, so they’re usually parasitic licenses aimed at getting free labour out of the userbase without actually giving back any code to the commons, all while keeping up the illusion of being open source. It sucks.
Huh! I didn’t know about all these happenings around floorp’s source code availability, but from what I can see now it should be back as fully open source under the MPL 2.0… am I wrong?
without actually giving back any code to the commons
Can you explain how this works?
Say a contributer downloads v1.1 of floorp, checks the code and makes a PR. Floop sees this and accepts the change and publishes v1.2. If a new contributer downloads floorp, they get v1.2 where they can see the previous merged PR.
How is it that they are not giving back? I can understand that not being on a repository makes it difficult but it’s technically possible.
The contribution is automatically relicensed under that licence and as such, it remains property of the org that made floorp, so they’re technically getting free labour, support and maintenance
Sounds like bsd with extra steps
It’s way worse.
With bsd you could at least take the code you got and make your own fork, with these shared source licenses you get nothing.
Now said contributor works a bit more on the project and adds some great new functionality, but floorp don’t agree it fits their plans. So the contributor decides to make their own fork called ceilingp and build from that. Nope, they don’t have the license to do so. They can take the mpl parts. They can take their own parts (they didn’t sign an exclusive release of their code). They can add their own new code. They can’t use the rest of the floorp code though.
So floorp gets the benefits but no one else can build off it without permission (save for private use without releasing it and potentially having others do the same).
Thanks for the explanation!
They can take their own parts (they didn’t sign an exclusive release of their code).
From this I understand that their attitude is “you can look at our entire code but don’t try making something out of it. But you are welcome to help us :)”
@leopold @astro_ray
Thats upsetting that slowly the code is being made proprietary.@leopold @astro_ray
So is it fully opensource or no?
The learn more button on the Floorp’s Flathub links to a license agreement that literally states the following:
2.5. Floorp is not completely open-source same. Floorp’s a part of codes are protected by copyright law and is not licensed under an open-source license. You may not use part of Floorp’s code in your own projects without permission from the Licensor.
The file is 4 months old, so maybe something changed. Someone in the other comment linked a 1-month old Reddit post saying that Floorp is open-source again. But if that’s the case, why haven’t they updated the license agreement yet?
why haven’t they updated the license agreement yet?
And with an English copy also, because that seems to be missing.
Just as well: If you’re writing ‘codes’, then I already don’t think your app will be any good. Coding is, at times, very exacting as a process, and very detail-focused. It’s not for everyone.
I don’t trust projects that can’t translate their project properly, especially in English / French / German / Chinese where translators and correctors are plentiful.
Maybe I’m just an entitled French / English speaker, but I do make sure I find good translators and correctors for the most common languages for my projects.
You would be surprised that numbers of FOSS project from East Asia not having updated information/license/documentation in English.
Especially Japanese one, it’s one of the hardest language that even if people had a middle level certification like JLPT N3, they might still not be able to translate formal document properly.
On other hand, FOSS project from Southeast Asia or South Asia always keeps their English documentation/license/info up to date.
Technically, isn’t this a different thing? Genuinely asking.
There could be a license that forbids use (sort of like the CC no commercial use license) but still allows the code to be reviewed publicly, no?
Some call that “source available” and not open source.
deleted by creator
It’s just your average cultural clash.
Most people on internet are accustomed with English naming culture. Meanwhile when people from non-Western (mostly US) making name that seems cool in their culture, it often lead to cultural clash. This also applies to symbol, gesture, etc.
The same kinda people who name their browsers Firefox or Chromium. We just got used to those names.
Firefox = fire + fox, not too crazy of a name
Chromium = literally just an element, how is that a weird name?
Meanwhile floorp sounds like a noise an alien would make
A lot of outdated information. Looks like they’ve been open and closed source at different times. Most recent info I could find (from last month) states: “While Floorp wasn’t originally closed source, we plan to revert to an open-source license under the GNU definition.”
Afaik it is proprietary. Probably some parts or modules of it are open-source.
From the Floorp official website:
Floorp’s source code is entirely open, allowing anyone to view it and contribute to the project. Not only is the browser itself open source, but the build environment is as well.
But it is not FOSS. As another person said, it is source-available which is still a kind of proprietary software.
It changed recently
https://github.com/Floorp-Projects/Floorp?tab=License-1-ov-file#readme
As I replied to the other comment, I wasn’t aware of the recent happenings. I’ve been using Floorp for a while now and when I installed it it was fully opensource.
However, it seems like it’s fully opensource again now (sources in the other reply)
Tbh I still wouldn’t trust them because they made some stuff proprietary for a while. It seems a bit sketchy.
Agree, it doesn’t mean the project it bad but it still seems a bit weird. I’ve texted one of the Dev on Reddit to ask for some clarification about the whole thing, and maybe understand the reasons behind this choices.
Will update you here if they reply
You can view and contribute, so do all the help possible but you can’t modify/rebuild/release a different version. That is not open source, that is called open to volunteer.
wow I’ve been using it thinking it was foss. time to look for something else.
It is open source
https://github.com/Floorp-Projects/Floorp?tab=License-1-ov-file#readme
To be clear, it used to be fully free software, then became proprietary for a little while, and then as of 17 June 2024 it became free again. So the most recent release 11.15.0 (from two days ago) is fully free, but the previous one isn’t.
I’d guess it’s either an issue of incorrect metadata in the Flatpak, or Flathub doesn’t recognise the MPL2 license.
IMO there’s no true FOSS software out there, why ?
because FOSS software still use some proprietary library or make some part in their code proprietary (good reason for this because you don’t wanna some dude steal your code & claims it)It’s extremely easy to have a fully featured desktop that is open source software only.
Open hardware is hard though.
Open hardware is not something sustainable. Hardware does not enjoy the benefit of open source software.
Open projects inside the 3D printing community might be possible but anything requires heavier R&D would not work.
Yeah, I don’t think that’s generally a problem. But modern firmware for some hardware is very complex and would be nice to be open.
Sadly not under the cold war we are having right now.
That’s just not true though
