Open Source

31111 readers

359 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

146

Why is flathub saying Floorp is proprietary (lemdro.id)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Afaik it is proprietary. Probably some parts or modules of it are open-source.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

https://github.com/Floorp-Projects/Floorp?tab=License-1-ov-file#readme

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 4 months ago (2 children)

But it is not FOSS. As another person said, it is source-available which is still a kind of proprietary software.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It changed recently

https://github.com/Floorp-Projects/Floorp?tab=License-1-ov-file#readme

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Tbh I still wouldn't trust them because they made some stuff proprietary for a while. It seems a bit sketchy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 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.