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.

  • @rglullis@communick.newsOPEnglish
    7•1 year ago

    Respecting a license is a choice.

    The source code from windows have been leaked a few times already. Try repackaging it or redistributing with modifications, see how far it will go before you get sued into oblivion.

    • @madkarlsson@beehaw.org
      6•1 year ago

      Your argument falls flat because the Windows source code has never been distributed under open source licenses. Access to the source code does not mean you can redistribute it automatically. Hence its a choice. If you choose to redistribute closed source code, that’s on you.

      • @rglullis@communick.newsOPEnglish
        6•1 year ago

        Windows source code has never been distributed under open source licenses.

        Neither has Grayjay’s, which is why it’s important to have a precise definition of what “Open Source” means.

        • @t3rmit3@beehaw.org
          5•1 year ago

          Windows has never been distributed under a source available license. Grayjay has. The distinction of legal liability still persists.

          Grayjay cannot sue you for distributing the source code for free.

          Microsoft can, for Windows.

        • @madkarlsson@beehaw.org
          3•1 year ago

          Your argument there also falls flat because you are making the argument “i made an an irrelevant argument to prove this other point”. You are by your own points arguing that this is bigger than grayjoy and using Windows illegally leaked source code as a reference to that argument? I dont really care about what grayjoy does at this point, it will prove itself over time , but you furthering some idea of of OMG through your sensationalist headline and this point that what grayjoy is doing is a threat to open source code, OSI, and the free software movement is just unnecessary fear. I’m past 40 and let me tell you. Chill. The average user does not care about OSS, the engineer does. The real threat comes when we have nowhere to distribute or host the code, or even can write code that isnt touched by rules and regulations. What a singular entity choose to brand their code as? Has happened hundreds, if not thousands of times before. And all of those instances have garnered no business based on it. The actual threat is Oracle and the likes, not whatever half measure grayjoy is so IMO you skip the sensationalist headlines. And chill. You can judge them if you want but this isn’t a threat to open source in whatever form

    • @splendoruranium@infosec.pubEnglish
      3•1 year ago

      The source code from windows have been leaked a few times already. Try repackaging it or redistributing with modifications, see how far it will go before you get sued into oblivion.

      I’m not really sure what you mean here, it has been modified and redistributed vigorously ever since its leak.

      “Suing a random internet person on the other side of the world” is rarely a successful proposition. In order for that to work there would have to be incentive, jurisdiction and a lack of anonymity :P