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_
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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