HiPhish's Workshop
hiphish.github.io

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.

  •  t3rmit3   ( @t3rmit3@beehaw.org ) 
    9•1 year ago

    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.

    •  rglullis   ( @rglullis@communick.news ) OPEnglish
      7•1 year ago

      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   ( @t3rmit3@beehaw.org ) 
        10•1 year ago

        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.”

          •  t3rmit3   ( @t3rmit3@beehaw.org ) 
            5•1 year ago

            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.