Why is flathub saying Floorp is proprietary
Why is flathub saying Floorp is proprietary
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're viewing a single thread.
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.