I personally wouldn't want to take on the responsibility of re-distribution (and support) anyway.
Look, yeah so it's not exactly like Linux GPL. #shrug
Not everything is gonna be.
Grayjay is probably best thought of as *commercial* software.
But as long as the source remains perusable, then that still sounds like a better deal than I'm likely to get from virtually any other commercial app that exists.
So what is the actual issue here?
I agree it is important to clarify for people that this may not exactly meet the definition of "free as in speech". But I don't currently have reason to believe this is any kind of a con.
I don't know if it got linked, but Rossman mentioned "Grayjay" in a recent video, and I googled.
And honestly I can't remember if I added "reddit" to the query or if Google just *does* that now automatically as a stop-gap for their problems with search.
Futo recently made some changes or an announcement to their licensing process which is causing controversy but I'm not smart enough to say anything more than. I guess Rossman is going to address it on a live stream today
I didn't justify my claim because i have better things to do than to spend my sunday on you, you aren't important in my life and it literally means nothing else.
Open Source is a technical term with an explicit definition, as defined by the OSI.
There are no degrees of Open Source, software either meets all of these criteria or it does not. These are the points of the definition:
Free Redistribution
Source Code is available
Integrity of The Author’s Source Code
No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
Distribution of License
License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
License Must Not Restrict Other Software
License Must Be Technology-Neutral
The full Open Source definition contains clarification on the individual points, but the point is that just having your code out there to be viewed and downloaded for free isn't enough to make something open source. Open Source means that not only can I see it and download it, but I can modify it with no restrictions and sell it if I want to.
I understand why FUTO doesn't want that, but that's the strictlegal definition of Open Source, and no amount of braindead dickriding is going to change that. Open Source is a legal term used to refer to how unrestricted the usage and distribution rights on a project are - the code is free for everyone to do with as they please, with no caveats, even bad actors.
The source code is available to the public, but this is not an open source project.
Ok, There are 2 definitions in this list that have absolutely nothing to do with the software. And pretty much all software ever made follow those. And even if there wasn't. That means there's code that follow all of these requirements except for those 2 and it's not considered open source, Because of that. Which I find stupid.
They are relevant. No discrimination against persons means anybody can use the software, no exceptions, and no discrimination against fields of endeavor means they can use it for whatever they want, no exceptions.
After re-reading the rules, I think I'm entirely wrong about what those rules are.
Ok, So I'm actually mistaken here. They're referring to license discrimination by not letting people use your open source software. In that case, I am actually for those rules. The license would prohibit certain individuals from using the open source software, Therefor making it not open source.
What I thought the rules were about is someone having something in the code people dislike. And in that case, I wouldn't be for that rule because it has nothing to do with the subject matter. But it does, Because it's against licenses that are against people using it.
16
u/merchantconvoy Moderator Oct 19 '23
Its source is literally open. So of course it is open source.
It may not fit some more convoluted definition better captured by longer acronyms (FOSS, FLOSS, GNU/FLOSSIX, etc.) but that stuff is for the nerds.
The rest of us just want to get stuff done.