this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
122 points (100.0% liked)

Free and Open Source Software

18021 readers
10 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
 

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
[–] splendoruranium@infosec.pub 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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?

[–] rglullis 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Respecting a license is a choice.

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.

[–] madkarlsson@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] rglullis 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Windows source code has never been distributed under open source licenses.

Neither has Grayjay's, which is why it's important to have a precise definition of what "Open Source" means.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

Windows has never been distributed under a source available license. Grayjay has. The distinction of legal liability still persists.

Grayjay cannot sue you for distributing the source code for free.

Microsoft can, for Windows.

[–] madkarlsson@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

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

[–] splendoruranium@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago

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.

I'm not really sure what you mean here, it has been modified and redistributed vigorously ever since its leak.

"Suing a random internet person on the other side of the world" is rarely a successful proposition. In order for that to work there would have to be incentive, jurisdiction and a lack of anonymity :P

[–] sanzky@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Respecting a license is a choice.

what? no! licenses are how authors are deciding to grant specific permissions on their copyright.

that is like saying because you found a book in a library you have the choice to copy it and sell it.

the fact that source is available does not grant any permission besides looking at it.

[–] splendoruranium@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.