this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
226 points (87.2% liked)
Technology
57473 readers
3961 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It isn't open source, the licence violates point six of the open source definition
And violates point 1 The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. .... commercial distribution is forbidden in the license.
And violates point 3 The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
and violates point 4 Integrity of The Author’s Source Code no patch files are explicitly allowed_
and point 6 - you already covered
the futo license in question: https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/raw/master/LICENSE?ref_type=heads
This would definitely fall under the "source-available" category.
It's definitely FOSS. (Fake Open Source Software)
FOSS means Free Open Source Software
Woooooosh!
The source is available on their gitlab instance, so whether it not it conforms to some specific definition of open source, the source code is readily available for anyone to view and modify.
Nope, the license forbids that.
This is source available
Do you have a quote from the license to prove that? Louis Rossman himself said we're free to grab the code and edit it.
The quote: "Subject to the terms of this license, we grant you a non-transferable, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to access and use the code solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution."
Source: Section 2.1 of https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/raw/master/LICENSE?ref_type=heads
That is one definition of open source
I agree that it is great to meet all these criteria, but especially restricting commercial use is a pretty reasonable thing to do
I would say that Open Source, by any definition of the word, does have the assumption that you are allowed to modify and publish what you create at least in some form or another, even if it would be under a non-commercial clause or a license with other requirements.
When the licence explicitly says all you are allowed to do is access the code "solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution", that's not open source.
I'd say that is open source. But not free and open source
OSI's definition is the oldest and original definition. It's decades old at this point.
It's source available, nothing more.
Yeah, and shit changes. Remind me again what the IT landscape looked like decades ago?
It was better.
Don't know why people are downvoting you here. This OSI definition definitely isn't modern and doesn't match what people expect when they see open source.