I don’t think it means what he thinks it means.

Ah.

I don’t care if AI was used in its creation. I do care if it’s FOSS/libre.

And also, it’s a bit weird to me that copying YouTube’s UI is considered good. I havent used YouTube in a long time, but I recall there being some good aspects and some bad. Why not create your own vesion of a UI?

I agree that more options is a good thing, and that activitypub would be a plus. But FYI, I wont be using it because of the license. I use only FOSS whenevr possible.

Zoinks!

No. He’s named after Burton Guster from the show Psych.

I fold

Server01: 64 Server02: 19 Plus a bunch of sidecar containers solely for configs that aren’t running.

I was going to submit Journiv for review at It’s Really FOSS but one of their conditions to accept a project is that the project claims to be open source - and I can’t find anywhere that Journiv claims to be open source!

In this discussion on Journiv’s github Swalab Tech says:

You’re absolutely right, Journiv’s core is source available, and it currently includes a built Flutter web version client…As of now there are no plans of making client’s source available.

…

I can understand your concerns so let me answer them in detail.

First thing first, why is frontend code not open source:

…

Fyi, you could consider the app server as source available, but the web client is proprietary and closed and its license probihibits reverse engineering and the like.

Journiv looks pretty cool and i want to try it, but I only use FOSS software whenever possible and Journiv is not under an open source license. The debatably-FOSS license covers the server and prohibits commercial use, which i dont like but maybe could live wirh, but the web client’s license is not debatable: it is clearly not FOSS because it’s proprietary software owned and copyrighted by Swalab Tech and is not licensed under the PolyForm Noncommercial License 1.0.0.

Here’s an LLM’s summary of why it’s not FOSS: The PolyForm‑Noncommercial 1.0.0 is a non‑commercial license that blocks any commercial use of the code without a separate written agreement. That places it near the bottom of most freedom scales, such as the Open Source Definition or the Free Software Definition. FOSS people would point out that the licence allows use, copy and modification for personal or non‑commercial purposes but disallows commercial deployment or monetised use, so it fails the “freedom” test. The licence also requires contributors to assign all rights to the owner, which removes copyright retention and any freedom to license derivatives. Because the web client is explicitly excluded from the licence and cannot be hosted or redistributed as part of a service, the package is effectively a hybrid licence that is not accepted as open source. On a freedom scale of 0 to 100, it would be roughly 10–20, and FOSS communities would typically call it “not open source” or “proprietary‑style” and advise against using it in a truly FOSS project.