Free and Open Source Software

17973 readers

5 users here now

If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Gaywallet

alyaza

137

Grayjay is not Open Source (hiphish.github.io)

submitted 1 year ago by rglullis@communick.news to c/foss

78 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Today FUTO released an application called Grayjay for Android-based mobile phones. Louis Rossmann introduced the application in a video (YouTube link). Grayjay as an application is very promising, but there is one point I take issue with: Grayjay is not an Open Source application. In the video Louis explains his reason behind the custom license, and while I do agree with his reason, I strong disagree with his method. In this post I will explain what Open Source means, how Grayjay does not meet the criteria, why this is an issue, and how it can be solved.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] rglullis@communick.news 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The point is super simple: if the author of Grayjay has any provision in the license saying anything to the effect of "you can only redistribute this under certain conditions", then it's not Open source as defined by OSI. You may not agree with it and you might fully support Grayjay's opinion, it doesn't change the fact that it. is. not. open. source.

[–] t3rmit3 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Can you please link to where on opensource.org it says that? This just sounds like your or a general community interpretation. I don't see that in writing anywhere.

I literally quoted their website NOT saying what you claim, and your only response is, "nuh uh, it's what I said."

[–] brie 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Interestingly, the OSI seems to argue that noncommercial is a violation of the 6th clause, rather than the 1st or 5th.

[–] t3rmit3 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Thank you, that is a good find. The other person I've been talking to hasn't been able to cite anything from them. I've updated my top-level comment with this info.

Interestingly, I wonder if they distinguish commercial use from commercial distribution, which the author is talking about. Not allowing someone to use the software as a business is very different from not allowing them to sell it as a product.

edit: Reading more into this, I do think this is about prohibiting use of software by commercial entities, not prohibiting entities from selling the software. Apparently this is actually a point of disputation within the community, with people like Richard Stallman insisting that you can prohibit commercial redistribution and be Open Source.

This makes sense as to why Clause 1 only asserts that it must be freely-redistributable when bundled together with software from other sources.

load more comments (3 replies)