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 ) 
    5·
    2 years 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.

      •  t3rmit3   ( @t3rmit3@beehaw.org ) 
        4·
        2 years ago

        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.

        •  cacheson   ( @cacheson@kbin.social ) 
          3·
          2 years 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.