I hope this project gets more contributors to help make it as good or better than Newpipe. Written in Dart using Flutter can allow it to be compiled for Android, iOS and desktop

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] badcodecat@lemux.minnix.dev 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

isn't grayjay still proprietary?

[–] fl42v@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

it used to be "see source, but no touch source" when it came out, and now it's "see source, touch source, no sell source". Not exactly proprietary, not free as in freedom. Kinda gray zone here, pun intended

[–] Neon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

"See source, no touch source" is called source-available.

"touch source, no sell source" is a new phenomenom and there are multiple names to describe this. I personally like "fair-source" though.

[–] trymeout@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I knew of Grayjay but did not know it was open source now. A lot of the app is written in Kotlin which is promising for cross platform

[–] PoorPocketsMcNewHold@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Just not necessarily FOSS. The code is available and open to a certain limit. Not free however.

https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master/LICENSE.md

[–] Nonononoki@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

So proprietary

[–] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

no it isnt, its source available, there is a very big difference

[–] PoorPocketsMcNewHold@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Not in the usual sense, because you can still fully fork it, use it, modify it and redistribute it freely like a FOSS software.

You may use or modify the software only for non-commercial purposes such as personal use for research, experiment, and testing for the benefit of public knowledge, personal study, private entertainment, hobby projects, amateur pursuits, or religious observance, all without any anticipated commercial application. You may distribute the software or provide it to others only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes.

The only limitation which make it non-free is :

Notwithstanding the above, you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor in any copy you distribute to others.

I don't really understand if it "prevent you" to remove and/or prevent the modification of the donation to FUTO part of the code. Should not prevent you from adding yours on top of it (As in, adding a prompt as in "If you want to do donate to the project, you can donate to the original app owner (DONATE TO FUTO) or the maintainer of the fork you are using (DONATE TO THE MAINTAINER).) And the obvious limitation of making derivative work of it, non-free of course.

Also, they do reserve themselves rights to abrodge the license for those who abridge it, which i don't know how legally useful it may be, for license violations compared to protecting the GPL licenses from violations for example.

tl;dr : Seems FOSS to me, as long as :

You don't try to make it non-free
You don't remove the donation to FUTO part of the app

[–] Nonononoki@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

All the parts you quoted make it non-free. Free software allows you to use and modify it for any purpose.

[–] PoorPocketsMcNewHold@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

My bad. Yep, you are correct. I thought the GPL actually prevented you to sell compiled version of a GPL FOSS software (Outside of the original maintainer) but it seems it isn't compared to this one which force you to keep it free. There's also limitations on what you can remove so yep. Non-free. Seemed a bit Counter-intuitive to me in the first part. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.en.html

I should probably suggest the GNU Foundation to check this license to compare it, as I often see question of FUTO software license online.