New license request: Source-First-1.1 [SPDX-Online-Tools]

[MoralCode]

1. License Name: Source First License 1.1
2. Short identifier: Source-First-1.1
3. License Author or steward: FUTO Holdings, Inc.
4. Comments: While not an OSI approved license, this license is in use by some relatively well-known projects, such as the Grayjay video aggregation client, and is primarily being used by FUTO to ensure users and software consumers have maximal rights to use, study, share, and improve the software they use, whilst preventing commercial use. Per sourcefirst.com, only one change, swapping the name of the licensor, is needed to adapt the license to a different project. The license is versioned, suggesting some commitment to immutability, and the inclusion in SPDX has been brought up on their community Zulip chat.
5. License Request Url: http://tools.spdx.org/app/license_requests/433
6. URL(s):

• https://sourcefirst.com/
• https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master/LICENSE.md

7. OSI Status: Not Submitted
8. Example Projects:

• https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/Grayjay.Desktop
• https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay
• https://github.com/futo-org/grayjay-android
• https://github.com/futo-org/android-keyboard
• https://github.com/FricoRico/Versta.Models
• https://github.com/Foundry3D/FLED

8. License Text Diff: https://github.com/spdx/licenseRequestImages/blob/master/f4daea8f-1b04-40ba-8c40-0fcf1b77b8f2.png

Note:
The license closely matched with the following license ID(s): Elastic-2.0

[MoralCode]

I am not a lawyer, but heres a summary that I wrote based on the output of a different diff tool

Similarities to the elastic license:

• Definitions are largely the same
• Limitation of liability section is largely the same
• Termination clause is largely the same
• Preamble is largely the same, with the main change being to specify the name of the licensor
• Notices section is functionally the same, except for adding an example of what notice means

Differences:

• Limitations section is almost entirely changed in meaning, other than the last two sentences. TL;DR it prohibits commercial use and removal or obscuring of any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor
• Patents section is replaced with an immediate termination clause (i.e. if you make an infringement claim, your license ends immediately)
• New "fair use" section, stating that these terms are not intended to limit the rights granted by fair use
• No other rights section is largely the same, but it includes "These terms do not allow you to sublicense or transfer any of your licenses to anyone else, or prevent the Licensor from granting licenses to anyone else."

[FricoRico]

I'm the author of Versta and I'd like to deploy my application to F-Droid. However, according to F-Droids inclusion policy I would have to supply a license that is known by SPDX; Since I'm releasing my application under SFL-1.1, this is currently quite an awkward situation.

I would love my app to be able to be released on F-Droid under Source First licensing. As a first step this would require SPDX acknowledgement.

F-Droid inclusion rules: https://f-droid.org/docs/Inclusion_Policy/

My repository: https://github.com/FricoRico/Versta.Android

[seabass-labrax]

Thanks to @zvr for bringing this license request to my attention. As a representative of F-Droid I would like to respond to @FricoRico's comment.

The official F-Droid repository exclusively contains software which is free and open source, which would mean that programs distributed under the Source First License 1.1 (as submitted here) would not meet F-Droid's inclusion policy. This is due to the limitations that this license places on certain types of modification, as well as on commercial distribution. Although you or @MoralCode may wish to seek the addition of the license to the SPDX License List for other reasons, this alone would unfortunately not be sufficient for Versta to be distributed by F-Droid.

F-Droid is designed so that anyone can host an alternative repository and that users can easily access it through the F-Droid app. We would be more than happy to support you if you choose to host a repository for Versta. Furthermore, if at any point you choose to release Versta under a FOSS license we would be delighted to include it in our official repository.

[MoralCode]

@MoralCode may wish to seek the addition of the license to the SPDX License List for other reasons

This is true. I've been working on publishing a Flatpak for an app that uses this license and I would love to be able to accurately represent the license of the project in the metadata.

[swinslow]

Looking at the SPDX license inclusion principles, and specifically the "Other factors":

This is not an open source (or open source-ish) license, as the rights to use, modify and distribute are only for non-commercial purposes. So this does not meet factor 1.

In light of that, we would need to see very significant and extensive use throughout a broad community (see "Other factor" 3) to add this to the license list. The examples shown here don't demonstrate that. So I am not in favor of adding this to the License List.

If your concern is about getting an SPDX identifier just so you can get your software added to F-Droid or another package manager, please note https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/DOCS/faq.md#how-does-one-handle-licenses-not-found-in-the-spdx-license-list and elsewhere in this repo's documentation and the SPDX specification which describes how anyone can create their own LicenseRef- custom identifier for use with SPDX-formatted license ID tooling.

However, in light of @seabass-labrax's comment above, it sounds like it's very intentional on F-Droid's part that non-FOSS licenses like this one would not be acceptable for F-Droid, regardless of whether or not SPDX adds it to the License List.

[karsten-klein]

{metæffekt} Universe
canonical name: Source First License 1.1
short name: Source-First-1.1
markers: Incompatible with Secondary License Marker, No Warranty Marker, Non-commercial Marker, Proprietary Marker
category: Source First License
OSI status: none

Comment
No recommendation.

[swinslow]

Discussed on legal team call 2025-05-29, agreed with comment above about not meeting license inclusion guidelines.