It’s non-free, it’s non-libre, but it does pass the bar of open source software. The OSI, EFF, RMS or whoever don’t have to say it is in order for it to be true.
You can distribute it but there are limitations on it, you can make a fork of Grayjay that is free to use, review, re-distribute and add parts to it adhering to other open source licenses from whence they were developed as long as it’s non-commercial, and doesn’t make any representations on behalf of FUTO or Rossman, essentially.
My issue is with the fact that FUTO wishes to have exclusive rights to monetise Grayjay. The public should have the right to vote with their wallets on who they want to maintain their software. If someone else can do a better job than FUTO, why should he not get paid? Yes, FUTO are the ones who spent money upfront to develop Grayjay in the first place, but they are also the ones from whom people will be buying at first. No one is going to pay Bob instead just because he changed the icon. But if FUTO were to drop the ball at some point in the future and Bob were to pick it up, why should Bob not be able to get paid?
Because there are companies who would to pay no dev costs, slap their branding on something, and monetize it, but who will also use their market clout (or walled garden control) to not provide a better product, but just make buying it from the actual developers less convenient, or limit interoperability with the original product.
We do not live in a world of conscientious consumers who will go out of their way to pay the developers who actually made something, we live in a world where whoever’s version is at the top of the app store gets the most downloads.
No one is going to pay Bob instead just because he changed the icon.
This is just ridiculously naive. When Bob is actually named ‘Amazon’, ‘Microsoft’, ‘Google’, etc, people will trust them more than random app developer company.
Go ahead and tell me one piece of FOSS which was maintained by one person and got screwed over by MS/Amazon/Google. These big companies will more likely than not just hire the dev than trying to outcompete them.
On the flipside, tell me how many huge VC-funded companies started with “real” open source and then switched to a “source available” license after they acquired customers and favored profits over community goodwill?
The developer can yank the software from under you, he can change the monetisation model, or he can drop support for the software. With Free or Open Source software you could just take over the responsibility of maintainership or outsource it some other developer you can trust instead.
Sure, good point but in the real world this will never happen.
If Mozilla suddenly decides to implode you won’t just casually take over Firefox or hire another maintainer to develop it for you.
In theory this sounds nice but for any software that is of any real complexity (and thus use) it is pretty much irrelevant.
Also, this all has nothing to do with Grayjay unless the person who takes it over decides to start charging money for it. Anyone is free (libre) to maintain it and distribute it for free (gratis).
If you take over a project of this scale you need to make this your job and thus get paid. There’s a good reason Louis hasn’t just pushed this out as his hobby project but hired developers.
If you can’t it won’t happen. My point is more: If it was possible to take over, would it really happen? Extremely unlikely.
I personally nerver really understood the whole semantics debate that always unfolds in situations like this. What does it matter if a piece of software is truly libre or how it is licensed as long as the source code is available? Respecting a license is a choice. If you have the code you can fork it. Whether it’s libre or not only influences your ability to put your real name under the fork, doesn’t it?
The source code from windows have been leaked a few times already. Try repackaging it or redistributing with modifications, see how far it will go before you get sued into oblivion.
Your argument falls flat because the Windows source code has never been distributed under open source licenses. Access to the source code does not mean you can redistribute it automatically. Hence its a choice. If you choose to redistribute closed source code, that’s on you.
Your argument there also falls flat because you are making the argument “i made an an irrelevant argument to prove this other point”. You are by your own points arguing that this is bigger than grayjoy and using Windows illegally leaked source code as a reference to that argument? I dont really care about what grayjoy does at this point, it will prove itself over time , but you furthering some idea of of OMG through your sensationalist headline and this point that what grayjoy is doing is a threat to open source code, OSI, and the free software movement is just unnecessary fear. I’m past 40 and let me tell you. Chill. The average user does not care about OSS, the engineer does. The real threat comes when we have nowhere to distribute or host the code, or even can write code that isnt touched by rules and regulations. What a singular entity choose to brand their code as? Has happened hundreds, if not thousands of times before. And all of those instances have garnered no business based on it. The actual threat is Oracle and the likes, not whatever half measure grayjoy is so IMO you skip the sensationalist headlines. And chill. You can judge them if you want but this isn’t a threat to open source in whatever form
what? no! licenses are how authors are deciding to grant specific permissions on their copyright.
Sure. But that does not contradict what I wrote.
that is like saying because you found a book in a library you have the choice to copy it and sell it.
That is precisely the choice one has. It’s a choice one doesn’t have when one doesn’t know the contents of the book or when they are confronted with closed-source software.
the fact that source is available does not grant any permission besides looking at it.
Yes I agree. “Making the choice” would require making it without the author’s permission.
But again, I’m not talking about permissions as I don’t really consider them to be nearly as important as availability and ability. One has the ability to modify/use code with the source and without permission one does not have the ability to modify/use code without the source and with permission.
So yes, Libre is nice, but the source-open aspect is always the most important component.
Open source is not a very useful term. Grayjay isn’t free and libre software because it restricts commercial use, and it is definitely source available software. Whether that makes it open source depends on who you ask, and no, OSI is not the undisputed arbiter of all things open source just because they say so.
Griping because someone is using a different definition of open source than you do when they are being very clear about what exactly their license allows is not productive.
Fuck you! Do not feel offended, in my culture “fuck you” means “I agree with you”. I will not let mainstream opinion limit what I can say, my definition is valid.
The point you are attempting to make here is irrelevant and incorrect. The entire problem is that there is no consensus mainstream opinion on the meaning of the phrase open source.
Have you read any article or seen any news covering free/libre software? They always refer to it as “open source” (when they are not saying free/libre). The biggest companies always say open source, including Google, Apple, Microsoft, Meta, etc. You need examples? Check any libre code they themselves produce. They refer to it as open source. You know what the project that develops the libre core of Android is called? It’s called “Android Open Source Project”. No kidding. Now show me a project of equivalent size that calls itself “open source” despite not being libre. And no, OpenAI does not count, “open” is not the same as “open source”.
Try reading these comments here. There are just as many people adamant that open source mean source available as there are people who think it means libre. The vast majority of people here don’t follow free software the way you or I do, and this is a niche free alternative website. There’s no point in getting mad at people who don’t obsess over industry definitions and just use open source to mean software that has source code that is available. You know, like the source is open or something crazy like that. It just makes us look bitter and hostile while accomplishing nothing useful.
I believe the people here are somehow very out of touch with FOSS or are actively being malicious. Equivalating open source to source available is harmful to our ideas. People get confused and think we only want to see the code which is definitely not enough. This community here is even called “Free and Open Source Software”. Do you want this community to be about source available software? That goal can only be of malicious intent.
I can give my two cents on it, as one of those people you’re talking about.
I’m very in touch with the FOSS community. I have used more FOSS software than you can think of (and yes, that is with your definition of FOSS). What I am NOT however is a stallmanist or a purist who dogmatically sticks to one narrow definition of what FOSS should be. While I wholly understand the importance of not diluting the meaning of FOSS, I think it’s critical to step back and see the broader picture here. The dogma around FOSS can sometimes be counterproductive, stifling the very innovation and freedom it aims to foster.
Firstly, if I had to choose, I’d certainly prefer to have a software landscape filled with “source-available” applications over one dominated by entirely proprietary systems. Source-available projects, even if not fully meeting the stringent FOSS criteria, still provide transparency and offer opportunities for auditing and modification, which is what we all want! It’s a step towards wresting control from Big Tech and their walled gardens.
Secondly, I aim to push for a new industry standard where, at the very least, source-available software becomes the norm. However, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Thirdly, we have to be realistic about sustaining FOSS projects. The developers behind these initiatives should absolutely be compensated for their contributions. It’s essential to acknowledge that people have livelihoods to maintain. And if a FOSS project (or a source-available one) truly provides value, its creators deserve not just recognition but overwhelming financial success. This is the only way to incentivize more high-quality projects and thereby fundamentally change the software industry for the better.
Lastly, concerning the GPL, while the GPL has played a monumental role in the growth and popularity of FOSS, it’s not without its flaws. For one, it can sometimes discourage commercial adoption, which, whether you like it or not, is a powerful driver for widespread change.
While I’m way more invested in FOSS than most people, I don’t consider myself a purist; I don’t consider myself a Stallmanist and as much as I respect his contributions to software I would rather the world not have his dogmatic and “religious” beliefs in Software.
I believe in a pragmatic approach that not only seeks to amplify the tenets of FOSS but also recognizes the realities of the world we inhabit. Being inflexible in our definitions and approach can only improve our situation.
Let’s not make this sound worse than it is. We don’t need to devolve into Stallman everytime we see software that’s not 100% in agreement with the GPL or other extreme licenses. Let’s celebrate some great software, nitpicking like this is not productive. Their license is perfect for their product; at the very least they’re HONEST unlike big tech companies. I’d rather have “source available” code than proprietary bullshit that can only be understood by spending months looking at it with ghidra
The idea behind it per the video where they introduced it is that its a means of creators to take ownership of their own content. The idea being that if you follow creator X on youtube you arent actually following creator x you’re following them on youtube. If something happens or youtube removes a video for whatever reason of they have to leave the platform then you lose access to their content.
If you’re on this app you follow creator x on whatever platform they are on. So in theory it’s not just an all in one app but a way to solve the youtube monopoly and make for an easy transition.
In concept I think it sounds really cool, but whether it actually is able to deliver on it’s goals remains to be seen.
There are bad things to say about Google all day, yet consumers will still line right back up to use Google’s video service without fail. Having that content mixed in with other sites reduces dependence on YouTube over time, as creators consider decentralizing their media presence and posting content on Patreon, Nebula etc, instead of Youtube’s walled garden of Communities, Memberships and of course the channel itself.
IMO right now this app is really for people who want to support OR already are supporting creators, and are displeased with the amount of apps, bad UX and poor integration this experience entails when done outside of Youtube’s platform
If that’s not for you, then maybe the privacy aspect of Grayjay is of interest, where the YouTube integration allows you to control what data is associated with your Google account. Aside from those, most people should probably stick with their existing YouTube client. This app is targeting a specific kind of audience, and fits right in with Rossmann’s
I dont think it is only about this app. it is mostly about how the concept of Open Source has been redefined. Sometimes it feels like “source code is available” the same as Open Source (the code is there open, for you to see ,right?).
Imo it’s not been redefined at all. People are just pushing the boundaries of what it means and creating absolutist views on what it should mean. There is a space for that sure, but shaming companies that define where their own boundaries are is not the way of it.
If we do that, you are challenging what software freedom actually is if you ask me
One can certainly argue it's not "open source" so much as "source available", but I don't think it's that controversial.
They're providing a product, and obviously don't want other people slapping their name on it and selling what they worked hard to make. Their license makes it easier for them to enforce that.
They also obviously don't want people creating malicious forks of their program, like what keeps happening with NewPipe. So their license also makes it easier for them to enforce that.
If you want to encourage more companies to make their source code available, then maybe we shouldn't shit on those that are.
Plus, per Rossman's own words, you don't even have to buy Grayjay for it to work, it'll just ask you, ala Winrar. Give them a break.
I don’t agree with the assessment of the OP or the original blog article. Grayjay is Open Source software.
It is, however, NOT FREE SOFTWARE and I do know that organizations like the FSF and OSI do not consider it to be free.
The free status of this software was never misrepresented by Louis Rossman. He blatantly explains that there is a cost to this software and that the license is how he plans to enforce his means of collecting this fee on the honor system.
He also outlines how he cannot; and will not…stop anyone from forking this software and basically removing the payment bits of the code and just redistributing it under a different name. I strongly recommend someone does that…and maybe license that work under a much more unrestrictive free license that FLOSS-Only users might find more palatable.
I get that nobody wants or needs to trust Louis to keep his word. He’s gotta run a business at some point…and distributing this software this way on the honor system might not pan out quite the same way he hopes it will. I do hope that at the point where he and his compatriots choose to stop maintaining the application; that they do immediately retcon this restrictive license; and re-release it under a new, free, and unrestrictive Open Source Software license.
If it’s not OSI approved then it’s not open source.
OSI as an organization did not invent the concept of Open Source software. They just appointed themselves the arbiters of the term. There are other organizations and individuals that disagree with their definition.
He also outlines how he cannot; and will not…stop anyone from forking this software and basically removing the payment bits of the code and just redistributing it under a different name. I strongly recommend someone does that…and maybe license that work under a much more unrestrictive free license that FLOSS-Only users might find more palatable.
This is incorrect. You cannot fork this project. You CAN, however, modify it for your own personal use. You cannot distribute it. Redistribution is specifically what he wants to avoid happening, and that’s why the license is what it is.
It prevents commercial distribution of the program, and thus it discriminates against persons and groups who wish to distribute the program commercially.
Uhhhh what? That’s not how any of that works.
“No discrimination against persons or groups” is about protected classes.
Interpreting it to mean “anyone for any reason” would mean that open source allows people to simply assert sole ownership of it, because to not allow them to is to discriminate against people who want to assert sole ownership. That’s an ad absurdum broadening of the OSI ethos.
…and the blog author was in fact incorrect in their assertion that it violates the personal discrimination clause (clause 5). It is a violation of Clause 6, “No Discrimination Against Field of Endeavor.” Also, the section specifically talks about prohibiting its use by a business, which is not the same as its sale by a business.
Let’s say Alice develops an application with maintainer lock-in, but for whatever reason the need for a fork arises. Bob has been studying the code and knows how to maintain in properly. However, because Alice’s code has a non-commercial redistribution clause Bob cannot make money off his maintainership. If the software is sufficiently complex that Bob has to spend a lot of time on it, or if Bob must be able to provide paid support (e.g. for regulatory reasons) he is not allowed to do so. Only Alice can demand financial compensation and thus in practice she is the only one who can afford to maintain the code.
Oh no. This person literally IS trying to just be able to start charging money for someone else’s code.
People build on top of each other’s work all the time. That’s normal and good.
If the people selling are passing someone else’s work as their own, that’s stealing. Otherwise, it’s just Free Software working as intended.
If someone is writing software but wants to prevent redistribution, then go ahead and make a license that forbids it. But then don’t get to call it “Open Source” or anything like that.
If the people selling are passing someone else’s work as their own, that’s stealing.
Which they are, unless they somehow only charge you for the portion of the code they wrote, in which case it wouldn’t run afoul of this license anyways, since you’re not charging for Grayjay. :)
Also, looking at OSD.org, nothing requires allowing commercial redistribution of the original code outside of as a component of an aggregate package, in rule 1.
Rule 3 says that derived works must be allowed (and says nothing about being charged money for) using the same license as with the original distribution, which would in this case mean a license that restricts commercial redistribution.
Also, the author of this has clearly not read many of the OSI licenses, because MANY of them revoke the license if patent litigation is initiated against the distributor:
7.2 If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Covered Source or a Product constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or You seek any declaration that a patent licensed to You under this Licence is invalid or unenforceable then any rights granted to You under this Licence shall terminate as of the date such process is initiated.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
If the people selling are passing someone else’s work as their own, that’s stealing. Otherwise, it’s just Free Software working as intended.
Do you not see the contradiction in this statement? Where do you find the line of what is stealing and “working as intented”?
If someone is writing software but wants to prevent redistribution, then go ahead and make a license that forbids it. But then don’t get to call it “Open Source” or anything like that.
There are so many licenses for this model already, I’m inclined to believe that you havent actually published any OSS yourself and your attitude in these threads are mildly said, off putting.
I am a big fan of OSI and support their work, but you are treating them (based in what i can read in this thread) like some holy, all defining entity, of what is open source. They are not, and true open source, cannot, and should not, ever derive its power from a central agency setting rules and definitions. If that happens, that will be the end of open source.
There are so many licenses for this model already,
Open Source != “Source available”. The whole point is that distinction is important, and there are plenty of companies now (MongoDB, Elastic and more recently Hashicorp) that are trying to claim to be “Open Source”, but in fact use licenses that prevent redistribution and impose conditions to use, which means that they are definitely not open.
I’m inclined to believe that you havent actually published any OSS yourself .
There you go. You can find projects that I’ve done for myself, projects that I’ve done while working for companies with real open source products, small libraries that were not core to the company and I convinced them to open source…
You know what they all have in common? All these licenses (MIT, GPL, AGPL) adopting allow code re-use, modification and redistribution.
Please stop gatekeeping OSS, it hurts all of us
First: please don’t use the Royal We. It’s a cheap rhetoric trick.
Second: you know what really hurts me. Companies that use “Open source” as a marketing point and to build community but remove freedoms when it’s no longer in their interests.
But I never used a royal “We”, in fact “we” was never used in my text at all. I used us, to refer to all the other comments that you can note does not agree with your assessment of open source.
Instead of you arguing my “cheap rhetorical skills”, how about you actually answer more than, estimated, a fifth of my statements? How about you stop with your own victimization of " what really hurts me". Because that, in essence, is actually cheap rhetorics.
I fully agree that when companies do this, that it is disgusting. But you have to take a step back and look at the actual effect. This is not by any means new, it happened likely before I was even conceived.
What would you say your point is. To shame grayjoy or make a point that this is a threat to open source? Both? Neither?
It’s not an open-shut answer. Ubuntu is Open Source, but they also have clauses requiring certain changes you must make to remove trademarked branding before you can distribute or sell it commercially, much like the clauses the author is talking about. There are tons of discussions about the specifics of what qualifies as FOSS.
Exactly and the model of make changes and remove trademark has worked very well for them. Why not introduce arbitrary other limitations when they are clearly not neccessary?
I am not the CEO of Grayjay, so I can’t speak to their reasons, but Canonical is a massive organization with a dedicated legal team (which anyone who wishes to OEM Ubuntu has to negotiate with directly, per the license - you can’t just remove branding yourself and go) who know the ins-and-outs of trademark law, and knows what they can and can’t do without accidentally giving up their Trademark claim. I know I sure wouldn’t feel comfortable navigating that.
Personal opinion, but the license is fine, and this is a sensationalist headline. The author’s claims are not proven correct, and they even write:
The second point is weird. I am not certain, but this too could be considered discrimination…
They are not certain because they are incorrect.
As it stands, it sounds like a variant of GPL which they’re using to make sure they don’t get sued if it’s used maliciously, along with ensuring companies don’t try to profit on what they give away (read comment below for better details).
I’m open to changing my mind, but it would need to be changed.
ensuring companies don’t try to profit on what they give away.
That’s a common misunderstanding of FLOSS software: it isn’t about “not letting others profit”, it’s about “you need to give back in order to profit”.
If a company wants to profit from someone else’s GPL licensed software, they can do it in exchange for letting the original company profit from the second one’s changes to the software.
If you don’t want to profit from other people’s changes to your software, then by all means, use a more restrictive license, there won’t be changes in the first place.
If you’re a user expecting the software to work after the original company got bored with it or gone under, then you want either a different company to take over, or you’re SOL.
hiphish.github.io
Hot