this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2025
21 points (73.3% liked)
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards
1502 readers
54 users here now
This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.
Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.
Posting Guidelines
All posts should follow this basic structure:
- Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
- What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
- Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
- Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
- Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.
Rules
- Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.
- Don’t use private communications to prove your point. We can’t verify them and they can be faked easily.
- Don’t deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers.
- Don’t harass mods or brigade comms. Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
- Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that.
- You can post about power trippin’ in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc.
- If you are the accused PTB, while you are welcome to respond, please do so within the relevant post.
Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.
Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.
YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.
Some acronyms you might see.
- PTB - Power-Tripping Bastard: The commenter agrees with you this was a PTB mod.
- YDI - You Deserved It: The commenter thinks you deserved that mod action.
- YDM new - You Deserved More: The commenter thinks you got off too lightly.
- BPR - Bait-Provoked Reaction: That mod probably overreacted in charged situation, or due to being baited.
- CLM - Clueless Mod: The mod probably just doesn't understand how their software works.
Relevant comms
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Perhaps "source available" is a more apt term for this kind of license
Source available is indeed the correct term for this type of license, but FUTO doesn't like it because that category also includes other licenses which impose different restrictions than they do. So, they now are calling theirs "source first" instead. 🤷
At least they stopped calling it open source!
I don't understand the nuance in licensing but how is this not open source?
"Allow users to see the source code of all of our software.
Ensure that you can modify the source code for your own use, and redistribute it."
Their actual license includes these points which are not mentioned in the blog post you're quoting from:
and
Among other things, these restrictions effectively mean that nobody has the right to fork the software, so anyone contributing to it is doing volunteer work exclusively for FUTO. When FUTO goes out of business the software can/will no longer be maintained (unless they decide to re-license it under a FLOSS license before they dissolve their legal entity).
If the right to fork seems unimportant, I recommend reading this informative text about why it is one of the essential freedoms which (real) FLOSS licenses are designed to protect.
If you could fork and remove a license, then GPL would be meaningless. You can fork but companies can't sell their code.
They don't want other companies to profit off the code. Maybe there scamming in there but on the surface it's a worthy goal.
did you read the text about "Forking and Free Software" on the page I linked in my comment you're replying to?
What is Free[/Libre] Software?
"Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. "
Which is what that software does. Which is why I'm confused.
Are they scammers that claim to publish their code but don't?
People can't change and distribute it under their license
They said you can. The restriction is that you can't make money off it. Which doesn't seem against the spirit of open source. Nothing in open source requires that you give your code to corporations for free.
Please look up the (A)GPL and stop helping Futo with their open washing
Come on, there's no need to be hostile. Look at my history. I've never heard of them before. Nor am I an expert on the various licenses.
Agpl is stronger about forcing release of forked source code but doesn't say anything about commercial use. What is an existing GPL variant that prevents commercial use?
Hey, sorry for coming off harsh. It's just that I've had enough with people claiming Futo is somehow the good guy here. Preventing commercial use is against everything FLOSS and basically makes forks impossible and any contribution to the project meaningless...
Also "commercial use" is incredibly broad, in Germany e.g. all commercial websites must have an imprint and IIRC some court ruled that even private websites must have one as well, so there is that. Futos' licensing is really a scummy move akin to MongoDBs SSPL.
The idea behind the GPL is that any change you make has to be available as source code to the users in addition to the four essential freedoms. The GPLv3 patched some exploits (LOL) regarding proprietary devices (ab)using free/libre software and the AGPL patches the "providing a service over a website" loophole which is not covered by the vanilla GPL.
This page by Codeberg has a nice decision tree regarding choosing an actually free/libre license and is also a good read in general
https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/
I upload 3d models to printables (prusa's online library). The uploads have a license checkbox list: free to download, free to modify, must list original author in remix, and/or no commercial reuse. You check off whatever you want.
Preventing commercial use is not against OpenSource. It's origin was because of commercial abuse. The OpenSource definition https://opensource.org/osd says no discrimination in use by businesses. It does not say you must allow companies to take your work and sell it for profit. Using open source software is not the same as selling it.
Creative commons has a non commercial license.
https://ufal.github.io/public-license-selector/#%3A%7E%3Atext=Creative+Commons+Attribution-NonCommercial+%28CC%2Clicense+that+bans+commercial+use.
The Creative Commons website explains why licenses which use their non-commercial or no-derivatives clauses are non-free.
In 2009, seven years after they released their licenses, they did a study which found that users and creators have substantially varied understandings about which types of uses are prohibited and allowed by the NC clause.
For instance, an NC work can be included in third parties' YouTube videos which Google might put advertisements on (as long as the uploaders don't monetize the video themselves), but the work cannot be included in Wikipedia (because contributions to Wikipedia must be freely licensed, which means allowing commercial use).
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_NonCommercial_license
Even the thing you linked directly contradicts what you said in like the 2nd paragraph
Yeah I was completely wrong. I had always assumed that corporate exploitation was allowed particularly with the BSD license that doesn't put any restrictions on use. I had no idea corporate exploitation was required by the definition of Open Source.
Source available proprietary software
"proprietary bullshit"