Depends what you mean by better? New pipe is fully open source, anybody can fork it and use it. So new pipe is free and open source software, so it contributes to the open source community.
The proprietary application is source available, but the license is such that nobody can use it to build other projects.
However, the proprietary application has support for more platforms built in. So it depends on what you want out of your experience and the future of open source software
Also worth pointing out why the code is released but the license is more restricted - the aim is to prevent scammers from grabbing FOSS, putting ads in it, and putting it in the app store, while at the same time allowing for folks to “own” the code they buy (or use).
I agree with your post except the own the code you buy.
It’s also worth noting they could get the same legal protections about things going into the app store, by trademarking the name. They don’t need to have a restrictive license around the source. People could upload codes to the app store but they couldn’t give it the same name.
The license is revocable, they could just decide tomorrow and nobody’s allowed to run the code. Yes you could technically still run the code, and that’s a net positive, but you couldn’t legally do it.
And given what we know about security vulnerabilities and software, if people aren’t allowed to patch the code for software vulnerabilities, then it becomes a bigger and bigger risk over time. And you’re definitely not allowed to distribute patches.
Depends what you mean by better? New pipe is fully open source, anybody can fork it and use it. So new pipe is free and open source software, so it contributes to the open source community.
The proprietary application is source available, but the license is such that nobody can use it to build other projects.
However, the proprietary application has support for more platforms built in. So it depends on what you want out of your experience and the future of open source software
Also worth pointing out why the code is released but the license is more restricted - the aim is to prevent scammers from grabbing FOSS, putting ads in it, and putting it in the app store, while at the same time allowing for folks to “own” the code they buy (or use).
I agree with your post except the own the code you buy.
It’s also worth noting they could get the same legal protections about things going into the app store, by trademarking the name. They don’t need to have a restrictive license around the source. People could upload codes to the app store but they couldn’t give it the same name.
The license is revocable, they could just decide tomorrow and nobody’s allowed to run the code. Yes you could technically still run the code, and that’s a net positive, but you couldn’t legally do it.
And given what we know about security vulnerabilities and software, if people aren’t allowed to patch the code for software vulnerabilities, then it becomes a bigger and bigger risk over time. And you’re definitely not allowed to distribute patches.