Grayjay is not Open Source : foss

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 50 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

Edit: a helpful commenter has found where on OSI's website it does prohibit non-commercial-use clauses...

...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.

[–] rglullis 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This person literally IS trying to just be able to start charging money for someone else’s code.

That happens all the time, never has been a problem, and it should not ever be.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

"People steal the profits from others' labor all the time, that's normal and good." - You

[–] hiddengoat@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I suggest you learn how free software actually works unless you want to look like an idiot.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] cacheson@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

That'd be covered by #4:

The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

[–] amki@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] rglullis 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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."

[–] madkarlsson@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

Please stop gatekeeping OSS, it hurts all of us

Edit: some autocomplete stupid grammar

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

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Th4tGuyII@kbin.social 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] rglullis 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One can certainly argue it's not "open source" so much as "source available".

That's the whole argument. It can be a very nice and useful product, but just don't say "it's open source"

[–] Th4tGuyII@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

If you read into the blog post this links to, you'll find that is only the opening argument, not the whole argument as you say.

My first paragraph reacts to that... and to be honest, I'm still going to say isn't that controversial.

When most people think of Open Source, they're not thinking about the OSL, they're thinking colloquially (as in the source being open to the public). I suspect he was using that wording colloquially as well - whether that was a slip up or intentional, I don't know, but considering he goes out of his way to let us know about the way Grayjay's licensing works, I don't think he's trying to hide anything by it.

The rest of what I said afterwards was my first reaction towards the rest of the blog, and I stand by it.

[–] fwygon@beehaw.org 25 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] dannym@lemmy.escapebigtech.info 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[–] yozul@beehaw.org 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jack@monero.town 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] yozul@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jack@monero.town 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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".

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

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.

[–] jack@monero.town 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dannym@lemmy.escapebigtech.info 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] library_napper@monyet.cc 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You skipped the part about wtf the app is and why we should care.

[–] dingleberry@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Grayjay is a platform that allows users to view YouTube alongside paid content like Patreon, or even live platforms like Twitch.

So I guess one more middleman between content and consumer.

Edit: their website loaded after 5 mins

So they are like: "don't open twitch. open our website, it's literally the same thing". A super-app for video streaming? Who asked for this, and why?

load more comments (2 replies)

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

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?).

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] 18107@aussie.zone 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I thought that open source just meant that you could read the source.

[–] chameleon@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

"Open source" has more or less always meant something very specific as defined by the Open Source Definition. Adding restrictions on top like no commercial use or no lawsuits turns it into "source available".

[–] Kissaki@feddit.de 11 points 1 year ago

It's how I intuitively read it too, even after decades of being exposed to tech, software, and licenses.

There's the OSI Open Source Definition, which is a free software definition.

I think the free terminology is clearer because free as in beer vs freedom is more obvious. Either it has a price or it doesn't. The Libre term is rather common alternative because of the ambiguity. The free as in beer or freedom is a common easy to understand explanation.

There's no such things for open source. In my subjective experience at least. "Source available" did not establish like Libre. Open is way more broadly ambiguous than free. And whether a license is open or open needs a full understanding and interpretation rather than only 'does it cost or can I use it for free.

Free is a dualist ambiguous differentiation. Open is broadly ambiguous and hard to verify.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] rglullis 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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?

[–] 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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] 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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] jack@monero.town 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I'm getting brain damage from this thread. So many stupid people here.

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

One of us, one of us

[–] jack@monero.town 3 points 1 year ago

Yea why not

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 7 points 1 year ago

Ecosystem - the blog author doesn't mention that to be open source, you need to be part of the ecosystem that other developers can build upon. Without the ecosystem the internet and our lives would be very different today.

[–] amki@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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).

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] confusedbytheBasics@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What is this in rebuttal to? I don't see any claim of being open source on https://grayjay.app/.

load more comments (1 replies)