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

Free and Open Source Software

17919 readers
56 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
[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 58 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 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is a great clarification, thank you. I edited my comment to point to yours there.