136
Grayjay is not Open Source (hiphish.github.io)
submitted 1 year ago by rglullis@communick.news to c/foss@beehaw.org

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
[-] Maestro@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

If it's not OSI approved then it's not open source. I hate it when companies try to dilute the open source moniker. This is "source available"

[-] rwhitisissle@beehaw.org 18 points 1 year ago

If it’s not OSI approved then it’s not open source.

OSI as an organization did not invent the concept of Open Source software. They just appointed themselves the arbiters of the term. There are other organizations and individuals that disagree with their definition.

[-] Maestro@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Most organisations and individuals that disagree with their definition are trying to sell you source available software as open source.

[-] rwhitisissle@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Cool. Somebody should let Richard Stallman know, I guess.

[-] Maestro@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

RMS doesn't disagree with OSI about the open source definition. He just thinks his Free Software definition is better. But RMS would most certainly not call "source available" software "open source"

[-] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 9 points 1 year ago

Why does OSIs definition matter over any other definition?

[-] Maestro@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

Because the OSI has been defining and stewarding open source for 25 years. It is the de facto definition and has been recognised as such by multiple governments around the world. Anyone trying to muddy the waters is probably trying to sell you their "source available" software as open source.

[-] jack@monero.town 5 points 1 year ago

Show me "any other defintion" of open source that is as widely known and accepted as the one from OSI.

[-] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How is this an answer to my question? Multiple people in the thread have shown alternative definition sources

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

So you can't link a single one? That's what I thought...

[-] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 1 year ago

Hey nevermind, someone else actually gave a real answer

[-] jack@monero.town 1 points 1 year ago

Seems like my super-complicated answer was too hard to digest.

[-] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 1 year ago

You didnt give an answer. You asked for other definitions, which the comments are filled with.

Tbh I kinda thought you didnt even know other people had alternate definitions

[-] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Do you need me to link you to other comments in this thread? Or are you not actually able to answer the question?

Is this a hard question to answer?

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

My comment is the answer to your question. I can't help you read.

[-] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 1 year ago

Your comment was asking for links to the thread?

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

Free and Open Source Software

17941 readers
16 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