138
Am I the only one who missed the Owncloud rewrite in Go?
(owncloud.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
138 points (96.0% liked)
Selfhosted
39677 readers
243 users here now
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Is it Free Software? In the repo is a LICENSE file, saying it's Apache licensed. But I also found an EULA saying it's not Free Software...
That's indeed confusing. The wording linked below suggests the eula is for packages distributed by owncloud. so to my understanding the source itself and any third party packages don't need to care about it.
https://github.com/owncloud/ocis?tab=readme-ov-file#end-user-license-agreement
Apache isn't a copyleft license. I guess they (and everyone) can just copy or compile it, make it a derivative work and say it's now non-free and terms and conditions apply.
I mean the GitHub repo has a license file which says it's Apache 2.0. And 3h) of the EULA says it doesn't apply to open source components. So it kinda doesn't apply to itself. I think you're right, it's Free Software after all and them saying "Some builds [...]" means it's the binaries distributed by them. IANAL and it kinda contradicts the Apache license which explicitly states I am allowed to redistribute copies both modified and not modified and both in object and source form. I'm not sure why they do it and if there are components missing in the GitHub repo.
I only read the beginning but it says you can use it for private deployments but can't use it commercially. Seems reasonable. Any specific issues?
Hmm. I guess that works, too. I'm just a nerd and really like Free Software. Almost exclusively use it. My phone runs a custom ROM with just a few unfree apps and without Google services, all my computers run Linux. Even the internet router does, and my IoT smart sockets run Tasmota or ESPHome. I like the 4 freedoms and the culture behind it. I participate and regularly contribute. All of that is mostly personal preference. I guess I could as well live comfortably with using Google Drive, but I choose not to. Source-available software would allow me to look at the code, something proprietary software doesn't allow. But that's pretty much it. I often can't remix and share it as I like. I don't have the freedom to decide to use it as it pleases me. And depending on the exact license, I can't even invite my friends and family to use the services I set up...
It's just the line I draw. And with the software I really rely on and use daily, I'm pretty strict. Either it provides me with the Four Essential Freedoms of Free Software as lined out by RMS in the eighties, or I don't volunteer to use it. I have no issues though with other people making different choices.