HiPhish's Workshop
hiphish.github.io

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.

  • Melody Fwygon
    32•1 year ago

    I don’t agree with the assessment of the OP or the original blog article. Grayjay is Open Source software.

    It is, however, NOT FREE SOFTWARE and I do know that organizations like the FSF and OSI do not consider it to be free.

    The free status of this software was never misrepresented by Louis Rossman. He blatantly explains that there is a cost to this software and that the license is how he plans to enforce his means of collecting this fee on the honor system.

    He also outlines how he cannot; and will not…stop anyone from forking this software and basically removing the payment bits of the code and just redistributing it under a different name. I strongly recommend someone does that…and maybe license that work under a much more unrestrictive free license that FLOSS-Only users might find more palatable.

    I get that nobody wants or needs to trust Louis to keep his word. He’s gotta run a business at some point…and distributing this software this way on the honor system might not pan out quite the same way he hopes it will. I do hope that at the point where he and his compatriots choose to stop maintaining the application; that they do immediately retcon this restrictive license; and re-release it under a new, free, and unrestrictive Open Source Software license.

    • Maestro
      20•1 year ago

      If it’s not OSI approved then it’s not open source. I hate it when companies try to dilute the open source moniker. This is “source available”

      • @rwhitisissle@beehaw.org
        19•1 year ago

        If it’s not OSI approved then it’s not open source.

        OSI as an organization did not invent the concept of Open Source software. They just appointed themselves the arbiters of the term. There are other organizations and individuals that disagree with their definition.

        • Maestro
          6•1 year ago

          Most organisations and individuals that disagree with their definition are trying to sell you source available software as open source.

            • Maestro
              1•1 year ago

              RMS doesn’t disagree with OSI about the open source definition. He just thinks his Free Software definition is better. But RMS would most certainly not call “source available” software “open source”

        • Maestro
          8•1 year ago

          Because the OSI has been defining and stewarding open source for 25 years. It is the de facto definition and has been recognised as such by multiple governments around the world. Anyone trying to muddy the waters is probably trying to sell you their “source available” software as open source.

        • @jack@monero.town
          5•1 year ago

          Show me “any other defintion” of open source that is as widely known and accepted as the one from OSI.

    • Scary le Poo
      5•1 year ago

      He also outlines how he cannot; and will not…stop anyone from forking this software and basically removing the payment bits of the code and just redistributing it under a different name. I strongly recommend someone does that…and maybe license that work under a much more unrestrictive free license that FLOSS-Only users might find more palatable.

      This is incorrect. You cannot fork this project. You CAN, however, modify it for your own personal use. You cannot distribute it. Redistribution is specifically what he wants to avoid happening, and that’s why the license is what it is.