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.

  • Yozul@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

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

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Danny M@lemmy.escapebigtech.info
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                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.