4 ms·

Don't claim it is "open source " when it is not, it is just another non-free paid source available software https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blo

Don't claim it is "open source " when it is not, it is just another non-free paid source available software https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master...

ben-schaaf 3y ago
This seems to be an issue purely with the title on HN? I haven't been able to find any references to futo themselves calling it open source.
- judiisis 3y ago
  In this YouTube video, https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=hkAalkXqA5HGp97c https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=hkAalkXqA5HGp97c Louis rossmann(FUTO's paid employee) claimed that it is open source(when it's clearly not)
  - silviot 3y ago
    I think you misspelled his name. It also doesn't sound like you listened to what he had to say about the license. I suggest you do.
    - _cenw 3y ago
      It's not open source by the most common definition provided by OSI. It's source-available at best.
- ImHereToVote 3y ago
  Sorry. Didn't mean anything malicious by it.
  - judiisis 3y ago
    I know,not your fault, you were probably misled by Louis Grossman 's youtube video https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw
imiric 3y ago
I find it curious that in the open source community we emphasize that the software is "free as in speech", yet if someone puts the source behind a paywall suddenly the "free as in beer" point becomes more important, and we argue that it's not _libre_ anymore. I'm a firm believer in the benefits of the rights granted by F/LOSS, but think that we should normalize paying for both binaries and source code. Monetizing OSS is hard enough, and developers should have more ways of getting paid to write OSS, not less. Giving the software and source code away _gratis_ can be unsustainable, and introduce perverse incentives that ultimately harm the user.
- judiisis 3y ago
  The issue is not about "paid", OSS can be paid, but it doesn't meet other freedoms of the Open Source Definition https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
  - imiric 3y ago
    You mentioned "non-free paid" in your original comment, so it is an issue. That official definition is problematic because it uses libre/gratis interchangeably, and in some cases actually requires the software to be given away gratis ("for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge"). I'm not able to see the license of Grayjay, but assuming it allows libre distribution and modification, it would still grant the user the most important freedoms of the strict OSS definition. I find it counterproductive that the official definition even mentions software cost, which has nothing to do with the actual freedoms that benefit the user, and in turn harms the development of OSS.
    - iopq 3y ago
      I believe only the source has to be given away for free. Which it is The problem with that definition is it allows commercial distribution of said software, which futo's license prohibits on purpose since you could bundle the futo software with ads and call it your own software. The futo license prohibits commercial distribution of its software by others
silviot 3y ago
The authors have this to say about it: > The issue with the non-standard license for the application stems from problems that arose with NewPipe, an open-source media player. When a video recommended downloading NewPipe, many people mistakenly downloaded a malware-ridden version from the Play Store. This fake version was loaded with ads and sometimes even required payment. The crux of the problem is that people were forking NewPipe, adding ads and trackers, and then asking for money on the Play Store. To prevent this kind of exploitation and deceit, the developers of the application in question opted for a less permissive license. This allows them to retain the right to take action against anyone who forks their application and tries to monetize it through deceptive means. They are committed to an ad-free, non-tracking application and don't want to engage in a business model where the user becomes the product. Source: https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=ivUrdDTwrhqUdt37&t=613 https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=ivUrdDTwrhqUdt37&t=613
- theK 3y ago
  Interesting approach, hopefully it works out because the problem they are addressing is an important one IMO. If the creators are still aligned with the open source ethos maybe it would help outlining what they consider a fair use fork. EDIT: typos
- _cenw 3y ago
  Isn't the solution to this more generally to trademark your name, not to change your license to something less permissive?
- prmoustache 3y ago
  Doesn't make it open source. And as someone commented before me, trademarks can take care of this without using a proprietary license.
- 2Gkashmiri 3y ago
  you can use Mozilla public license and still do that. you can do that with AGPL no problem.
  - 3y ago
unixfox 3y ago
https://archive.ph/2SlTq https://archive.ph/2SlTq

ben-schaaf 3y ago

This seems to be an issue purely with the title on HN? I haven't been able to find any references to futo themselves calling it open source.

judiisis 3y ago
In this YouTube video, https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=hkAalkXqA5HGp97c https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=hkAalkXqA5HGp97c Louis rossmann(FUTO's paid employee) claimed that it is open source(when it's clearly not)
- silviot 3y ago
  I think you misspelled his name. It also doesn't sound like you listened to what he had to say about the license. I suggest you do.
  - _cenw 3y ago
    It's not open source by the most common definition provided by OSI. It's source-available at best.
ImHereToVote 3y ago
Sorry. Didn't mean anything malicious by it.
- judiisis 3y ago
  I know,not your fault, you were probably misled by Louis Grossman 's youtube video https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw

imiric 3y ago

I find it curious that in the open source community we emphasize that the software is "free as in speech", yet if someone puts the source behind a paywall suddenly the "free as in beer" point becomes more important, and we argue that it's not _libre_ anymore. I'm a firm believer in the benefits of the rights granted by F/LOSS, but think that we should normalize paying for both binaries and source code. Monetizing OSS is hard enough, and developers should have more ways of getting paid to write OSS, not less. Giving the software and source code away _gratis_ can be unsustainable, and introduce perverse incentives that ultimately harm the user.

judiisis 3y ago
The issue is not about "paid", OSS can be paid, but it doesn't meet other freedoms of the Open Source Definition https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
- imiric 3y ago
  You mentioned "non-free paid" in your original comment, so it is an issue. That official definition is problematic because it uses libre/gratis interchangeably, and in some cases actually requires the software to be given away gratis ("for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge"). I'm not able to see the license of Grayjay, but assuming it allows libre distribution and modification, it would still grant the user the most important freedoms of the strict OSS definition. I find it counterproductive that the official definition even mentions software cost, which has nothing to do with the actual freedoms that benefit the user, and in turn harms the development of OSS.
  - iopq 3y ago
    I believe only the source has to be given away for free. Which it is The problem with that definition is it allows commercial distribution of said software, which futo's license prohibits on purpose since you could bundle the futo software with ads and call it your own software. The futo license prohibits commercial distribution of its software by others

silviot 3y ago

The authors have this to say about it: > The issue with the non-standard license for the application stems from problems that arose with NewPipe, an open-source media player. When a video recommended downloading NewPipe, many people mistakenly downloaded a malware-ridden version from the Play Store. This fake version was loaded with ads and sometimes even required payment. The crux of the problem is that people were forking NewPipe, adding ads and trackers, and then asking for money on the Play Store. To prevent this kind of exploitation and deceit, the developers of the application in question opted for a less permissive license. This allows them to retain the right to take action against anyone who forks their application and tries to monetize it through deceptive means. They are committed to an ad-free, non-tracking application and don't want to engage in a business model where the user becomes the product. Source: https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=ivUrdDTwrhqUdt37&t=613 https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=ivUrdDTwrhqUdt37&t=613

theK 3y ago
Interesting approach, hopefully it works out because the problem they are addressing is an important one IMO. If the creators are still aligned with the open source ethos maybe it would help outlining what they consider a fair use fork. EDIT: typos
_cenw 3y ago
Isn't the solution to this more generally to trademark your name, not to change your license to something less permissive?
prmoustache 3y ago
Doesn't make it open source. And as someone commented before me, trademarks can take care of this without using a proprietary license.
2Gkashmiri 3y ago
you can use Mozilla public license and still do that. you can do that with AGPL no problem.
- 3y ago

unixfox 3y ago

https://archive.ph/2SlTq https://archive.ph/2SlTq