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

  • leopold@lemmy.kde.social
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • xavier666@lemm.ee
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

  • Icell@lemmy.ml
    ·
    2 months ago

    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?

    • nasi_goreng@lemmy.zip
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

    • DecentM@lemmy.ml
      ·
      2 months ago

      The same kinda people who name their browsers Firefox or Chromium. We just got used to those names.

      • communism@lemmy.ml
        ·
        2 months ago

        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

  • Affidavit@lemm.ee
    ·
    2 months ago

    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."

        • shaked_coffee@feddit.it
          ·
          2 months ago

          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)

            • shaked_coffee@feddit.it
              ·
              2 months ago

              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

      • firewood010@lemmy.zip
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.