Free and Open Source Software

17905 readers

1 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

[email protected]

137

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

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

90 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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Non-commercial and ethical clauses. These are commonly seen attempts to restrict licenses in violation of OSD 6, “No Discrimination Against Field of Endeavor.” These types of clauses limit where, why and how the software can be used.

It's that simple. Any attempt to restrict who can use the software, and how they can use it, renders it OSD incompatible. Chiefly, with this:

No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes, but using software is different than distributing it. Running code on my computer vs selling it.

If I tell a business, "hey, I don't like capitalism, so you can't install the software", that's very analogous to the other ethical clauses they're talking about (usually clauses that prohibit use by LEOs and military). There is a clause about redistribution (1), and it expressly specifies that it applies to "aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources", not single, standalone works.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

There is a clause about redistribution (1), and it expressly specifies that it applies to “aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources”, not single, standalone works.

That is a weird way of wording it. In practice I doubt there are any OSI-approved licenses that prohibit standalone commercial distribution. If there were, you could trivially comply by just including a "hello world" program to make it an aggregate distribution.