[em-bee]

the (A)GPL does not protect me from a big resourceful company running my code and selling services based on it competing against me, while not paying me a dime.

most such companies avoid the AGPL because it prevents them from creating proprietary extensions to the code, but not because it would prevent them from commercially exploiting the code and profiting from it.

the problem that FUTO is trying to address is the commercial exploitation at the expense of the original creators. a problem that several companies (redis, mongodb, elasticsearch, zerotier, terraform, vagrant, and many more...) in recent years had to face, causing them to change their license.

it's a problem that bruce perens is also trying to address: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38783500 "What comes after open source? Bruce Perens is working on it"

[notpushkin]

I'm wondering why FUTO doesn't use AGPL for its Android apps – it's not like anybody is going to run them on a server. To prevent forks removing the payment requirement, perhaps? It's not really going to stop pirates though.

[simion314]

>To prevent forks removing the payment requirement, perhaps? It's not really going to stop pirates though.

I think is to prevent shits forking it and putting ads or malware in the programs, Like those asholes that put malware in VLC and then paid Google to have their website on top of the search results. Indeed Google will accept money from your competition or from bad people to put their shit websites on top of a legit result.

[nani8ot]

> I think is to prevent shits forking it and putting ads or malware in the programs, Like those asholes that put malware in VLC and then paid Google to have their website on top of the search results.

Disallowing distribution of software under the original name is already covered by trademarks. If someone doesn't care about trademarks they likely won't care about them not being allowed to distribute the app commercially nor change the payment links.

It's fine for FUTO to put those terms in the license, but the reason given isn't entirely convincing, given trademarks laws exist.

[simion314]

For me makes sense, I do not afford to send lawyers about some assholes that screwed with my trademark, I prefer to send Google Play evidence that the application stole my code and had it removed from the store. Users can hack the app and share it with themselves without commercial gains without a problem.

Maybe we need a new GPLv4 where we add restrictions like no ads, no malware, no stealing of private data, if your company uses GPLv4 and puts ads, steals private data or deplys malware or scams then you lose your license.

[em-bee]

trademarks don't prevent you from making a copy and marketing it under a different name. you still get to profit from my work

also, a trademark needs to be actively enforced. that costs money. something a small developer like me can not afford. copyright protection is automatic and i don't risk losing it if i decide not to go after a violator. i can always change my mind later.