6 ms·

It is not Open Source as claimed by Louis Rossmann https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/g

It is not Open Source as claimed by Louis Rossmann https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
yreg 3y ago
Seems like the server is down, can you post the license if you have it loaded?
- koen31 3y ago
  We are working on a Github mirror for the source code as soon as the Gitlab instance is back up.
- aiddun 3y ago
  The Gitlab is back up now. There's also another discussion of the license on this thread that hasn't been merged yet https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37925416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37925416
  - judiisis 3y ago
    dang can you merge this thread with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37925416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37925416 please
alexvoda 3y ago
I told him directly on his channel that this is the case and that calling non-OSI licences open source is openwashing. And I recommended the Mozilla model of trademark + MPL for their purposes. He replied to my comment but didn't seem to care about the issue.
Sytten 3y ago
At the end of the day that is why I decided to not be open for my business. Even if you try to be on the good side its hard and you have the eternal source available vs open source debate. I wish they would develop a license friendly to both businesses that want to ship software that is source available and users of that software. One could strike a balance between full OSS and legitimate needs of the producer to live off their creation.
- alexvoda 3y ago
  They can use whatever licence they want. It's their software. They should only call it open source if they use an OSI-approved licence. Doing otherwise is openwashing and is frowned upon.
  - squigz 3y ago
    I wonder if one reason particular groups of people have a hard time getting others to care about some issues is this tendency to make up words in order to make things sound more malicious than they are. Usually it just ends up sounding silly.
  - tcfhgj 3y ago
    It would be open washing if you couldn't look at the source code, but you can.
    - alexvoda 3y ago
      Open source does not mean you can look at the source code. Open source is defined by the OSI. If it is not using and OSI-approved license and claims to be open source it is open washing. Call it shared source or something else. This is a long since settled debate.
      - tcfhgj 3y ago
        Yes, it does. It's the opposite of closed source, and the meaning is implied by the word open. OSI isn't authoritative of the term.
otikik 3y ago
This is addressed on the video here: https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?t=628 https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?t=628 TLDR: they used an OSI-approved version on a previous app, someone forked it, filled it with ads, and published it in the app store trying to make it look like the original one. They are ok with people modifying the app, just not doing that. I am not saying that this is the best approach, but that is their justification at least. To me personally, as long as I can see the source and modify it, it is open source. OSI-certified is a subset of that. OSI clains that they "define" Open Source, and I think that is mostly true, just not 100%. The fact that OSI doesn't have a license which prevents the malicious forking mentioned above seems like an indication that they won't (or can't) cover some cases that I believe are open source.
- Timshel 3y ago
  Note: the forked app in question is NewPipe and not done by them. > They are ok with people modifying the app, just not doing that. And the license is more restrictive than that I believe. If they drop the project without changing the license I'm not sure you could fork it while asking for donation (Depends on how you interpret: "directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation"). As for malicious forking as other mentioned you can use trademark to prevent it.
  - alexvoda 3y ago
    After looking a bit more at the license, I am not even sure it is possible to use it for the intended purpose. It clearly states "you are not entitled to use or do anything with the code for any commercial or other purpose, other than review, compilation and non-commercial distribution". That means that if you compile it unmodified, you are NOT entitled to use the compiled binary to watch videos. You are not entitled to install or execute the binary. You are not entitled to use it in any way other than reviewing it. This is what happens when idiots get creative with licenses.

It is not Open Source as claimed by Louis Rossmann https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

yreg 3y ago

Seems like the server is down, can you post the license if you have it loaded?

koen31 3y ago
We are working on a Github mirror for the source code as soon as the Gitlab instance is back up.
aiddun 3y ago
The Gitlab is back up now. There's also another discussion of the license on this thread that hasn't been merged yet https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37925416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37925416
- judiisis 3y ago
  dang can you merge this thread with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37925416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37925416 please

alexvoda 3y ago

I told him directly on his channel that this is the case and that calling non-OSI licences open source is openwashing. And I recommended the Mozilla model of trademark + MPL for their purposes. He replied to my comment but didn't seem to care about the issue.

Sytten 3y ago

At the end of the day that is why I decided to not be open for my business. Even if you try to be on the good side its hard and you have the eternal source available vs open source debate. I wish they would develop a license friendly to both businesses that want to ship software that is source available and users of that software. One could strike a balance between full OSS and legitimate needs of the producer to live off their creation.

alexvoda 3y ago
They can use whatever licence they want. It's their software. They should only call it open source if they use an OSI-approved licence. Doing otherwise is openwashing and is frowned upon.
- squigz 3y ago
  I wonder if one reason particular groups of people have a hard time getting others to care about some issues is this tendency to make up words in order to make things sound more malicious than they are. Usually it just ends up sounding silly.
- tcfhgj 3y ago
  It would be open washing if you couldn't look at the source code, but you can.
  - alexvoda 3y ago
    Open source does not mean you can look at the source code. Open source is defined by the OSI. If it is not using and OSI-approved license and claims to be open source it is open washing. Call it shared source or something else. This is a long since settled debate.
    - tcfhgj 3y ago
      Yes, it does. It's the opposite of closed source, and the meaning is implied by the word open. OSI isn't authoritative of the term.

otikik 3y ago

This is addressed on the video here: https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?t=628 https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?t=628 TLDR: they used an OSI-approved version on a previous app, someone forked it, filled it with ads, and published it in the app store trying to make it look like the original one. They are ok with people modifying the app, just not doing that. I am not saying that this is the best approach, but that is their justification at least. To me personally, as long as I can see the source and modify it, it is open source. OSI-certified is a subset of that. OSI clains that they "define" Open Source, and I think that is mostly true, just not 100%. The fact that OSI doesn't have a license which prevents the malicious forking mentioned above seems like an indication that they won't (or can't) cover some cases that I believe are open source.

Timshel 3y ago
Note: the forked app in question is NewPipe and not done by them. > They are ok with people modifying the app, just not doing that. And the license is more restrictive than that I believe. If they drop the project without changing the license I'm not sure you could fork it while asking for donation (Depends on how you interpret: "directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation"). As for malicious forking as other mentioned you can use trademark to prevent it.
- alexvoda 3y ago
  After looking a bit more at the license, I am not even sure it is possible to use it for the intended purpose. It clearly states "you are not entitled to use or do anything with the code for any commercial or other purpose, other than review, compilation and non-commercial distribution". That means that if you compile it unmodified, you are NOT entitled to use the compiled binary to watch videos. You are not entitled to install or execute the binary. You are not entitled to use it in any way other than reviewing it. This is what happens when idiots get creative with licenses.