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@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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@communick.newsOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “People steal the profits from others’ labor all the time, that’s normal and good.” - You