Open source licenses must allow free redistribution. FTL allows license suspension and termination at any time, without notice, for any or no reason.
Open source licenses must allow source code distribution. FTL allows restrictions to access the code at any time, without notice, for any or no reason.
Open source licenses must allow modifications. FTL allows modifications only for non-commercial use, or maybe not even that. FTL dodges the word modifications here, no clue.
Open source licenses must explicitly allow distribution of software built from modified source code. FTL forbids distribution of software built from modified source code for commercial use.
Open source licenses must not discriminate against persons/groups and fields of endeavor. FTL allows license suspension and termination at any time, without notice, for any or no reason.
The FTL enables the following practices:
Copyright holders can change the license terms.
Copyright holders can re-license everything.
Copyright holders can target specific groups and individuals with discriminatory license terms.
Copyright holders can close source everything.
Copyright holders can forbid specific groups and individuals from using their work.
I guess itโs understandable to be concerned about licensing when putting money and work into a project like this, but I still hope they change their mind.
It is open source but you canโt publish modified code (this is to ensure there will be no malicious forks like there was with newpipe)
that is not open source. That is source available.
because we all know that license agreements are a line that trojan distributors will not cross. Not malware distribution, not hacking laws, but copyright infringement. They'd never do that at all.
because we all know that license agreements are a line that trojan distributors will not cross. Not malware distribution, not hacking laws, but copyright infringement. Theyโd never do that at all.
I believe it would be significantly easier to submit a takedown request for copyright issues, compared to reporting an app for being malicious.
That's not the case at all. These kind of Trojan operations are fly-by-night setups, and have the advantage of being able to react far faster than the official Devs. By the time you as the dev even know of the app's existence, they've already infected hundreds. And when you do get round to filing a takedown notice, they'll be back up the next day under a different name.
Even Nintendo can't get copyright infringing shit off Play Store in any fast capacity. Heck, Google will even run ads for people blatantly breaking copyright laws.
Edit: and that's before considering that Google won't let them onto play store and being only source available excludes them from eligibility for official F-Droid repos. They're going to have an absolute bitch of a time dealing with fakes and Trojans, even if they didn't release the source code at all
Thatโs not the problem. The question is, stopping actors that put ads and paywalls behind modified source, which technically isnโt malicious, itโs just being a jerk and this licensing makes it much easier to take down. Ofc, if he actually wanted it to be open source, heโd just force all derivatives to be non commercial.
The point is, that anyone who tries to make money by ad-bombing the app and adding it to the playstore will be punished. If you post your virus-infected fork in the far-behind edge of internet-nowhere Louis would not care about that. Otherwise: why do you not ask him yourself if you want to post your own fork and under which conditions that should be possible. If you ride principles, then develop your own app that is much much better and FOSS than grayjay. Nobody stops you.
Have you used it? Itโs like NewPipe except that itโs better in almost every way. The ONLY downside is that itโs just old-fashioned open source instead of FOSS.
Incorrect. People have been calling random software open source since the 80s, because itโs a very vague term. The new definition that you think is gospel wasnโt invented until the OSI was formed in '98.
The issue with all this is the general architecture of the internet, web browsers and programming languages and such arenโt going to fundamental change just because Google needs to see more ad revenue.
The harder they try to stick with this method of profiteering the harder the push back will be. There will always be ad block as long as there are ads.
All theyโre doing is showing their cards and setting themselves up for defeat!
So I have multiple YouTube accounts under the same email. I tried to important my subscriptions but it takes them from the wrong account. Is there a way to select accounts?
I just bought the FUTO voice input app as well from them and itโs genuinely amazing. It has punctuation where it needs to. It cuts out all the UMโs. And the best part is, I donโt have to pretend that Iโm talking to a robot. I can just speak as if Iโm talking to a normal person and it gets it right nearly every single time. It is so worth the $5.
This entire comment was typed with it, and I did not edit a single thing.
Thank you so much for this suggestion. Itโs really a great step towards the end of tedious voice messages. Works great but is a bit slow when using the multilang voice model. I donโt mind.
I wouldnโt classify it as a better revanced, but that doesnโt matter, thanks for sharing this awesome tool I really liked it, I first started incorporating Matrix in my life, then a couple days ago Lemmy, and now this, itโs great
Nice. I definitely have to check it out. I pay for Nebula/Curiosity Stream but am not able to play the Nebula videos with the screen off like I can with ReVanced. Hopefully I can with Grayjay.
It is not free software but it is open source. Stop gatekeeping the term. I can look at the code and modify it to my hearts content. I can also watch as the project is being developed. That means itโs open source. It would be free software if you where also allowed to redistribute it but I can fully see why they do not want that
i guess you didnโt click the link in my comment? here is another, with a list of governments and other entities who all agree about the definition: opensource.org/authority/
It isnโt about the list of approved licenses, itโs about the criteria for being added to the list. New licenses regularly meet the definition. This license clearly does not.
oh cool, if Edward Snowden did it I guess software freedom isnโt important anymore ๐
But seriously, did he? which one? Iโm not familiar with that.
But even if he did release something under one, I would be extremely surprised if he called a non-free license โopen sourceโ as FUTO is doing here.
I can understand why someone would say open source
I can understand why too: itโs either because they were not aware of the widely agreed-upon definition of the term, or because theyโre being disingenuous. Iโm assuming it was the former; whether OP edits the post will reveal if it was actually the latter.
The source is freely available, but it does not fit the common definition of open source. Namely, youโre not allowed to redistribute with tracking, malware, or adds. I guess this has been a problem with piped?
This whole discussion is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It depends completely on how you define open source, and there is no single universally agreed upon definition. Per this article, there are over 80 variations of open source licenses all with different term and conditions. Some are more permissive, some less so. Yet they can all be considered a variation of open source, though Iโm anticipating you wouldnโt agree? For this particular app, there are some restrictions in place aimed to protect users from malicious forks. IMO this is a good thing. I canโt understand why you are acting like the definition police here, it seems very pedantic tbh.
Many software buyers โ even new developers โ misunderstand the term โopen sourceโ to mean the software is available to use, copy, modify, and distribute as desired. This misunderstanding may arise from confusing open source with public domain or shareware, both of which are free to use and modify without specific permissions or licensing.
The truth is that, for the most part, open-source software is covered by one of several types of open source licenses and is not necessarily free of charge either.
In contrast to proprietary software where vendors typically make it impossible to access, copy or modify the source code, open source code permits the use, reuse, sharing, modification, and distribution of the code in other programs or applications. But just as with proprietary software licensing, open source software is subject to various legal terms and restrictions, depending on the type of open source license in force.
there is no single universally agreed upon definition
There is an overwhelmingly agreed-upon definition. Look at who agrees with it: opensource.org/authority/
And who doesnโt agree? Historically, a few of the giant software companies who were threatened by the free software movement thought that โopen sourceโ was a way for them to talk the talk without walking the walk. However, years ago, even they all eventually agreed about OSIโs definition and today they use terms like source-available software for their products that donโt meet it.
Today it is only misinformed people like yourself, and grifters trying to profit off of the positive perception of the term. Iโm assuming Louis Rossman is in the former category too; weโll see in the near future if he acknowledges that the FUTO license is not open source and/or relicenses the project under an open source license.
there are over 80 variations of open source licenses all with different term and conditions. Some are more permissive, some less so. Yet they can all be considered a variation of open source, though Iโm anticipating you wouldnโt agree?
There are many open source licenses, and many non-open-source licenses. there is a list of licenses which OSI has analyzed and found to meet their definition; licenses which arenโt on that list can be open source tooโฆ but to see if they are, you would need to read the license and the definition.
I canโt understand why you are acting like the definition police here, it seems very pedantic tbh.
Itโs because (1) FUTO are deceiving their customers by claiming that their product is something which it isnโt, and (2) theyโre harming the free and open source software movements by telling people that terms mean things contrary to what they actually mean.
You make some good points, but whether it exactly meets every criteria of open source software as per that definition or not, I really canโt bring myself to care that much either way. I get that itโs important to you, and thatโs fine, but not everyone cares that much about it. People can read and vet the source code, the intention of the project seems good, and the intention of the authors in deviating slightly from pure open source principles seems to be to protect their users from scammy clones, which also seems fine with me. TBH weโre not really into strictly following the letter of the law in the pirate community, and if this app helps people to avoid surveillance capitalism and puts even the slightest dent in Googleโs massive profits then Iโm all for it. Anyways, have a good one.
deviating slightly from pure open source principles
saying that prohibiting redistribution is just โdeviating slightly from pure open source principlesโ is like saying that a dish with a bit of meat in it is just โdeviating slightlyโ from a vegetarian recipe.
if you saw a restaurant labeling their food as vegetarian because their dishes were based on vegetarian recipes, but had some meat added, would you say that it seems like their intentions are good?
to protect their users from scammy clones
As I said in another comment, the way free open source software projects should (and can, and do) generally do this is using trademark law. He could license it under any free software license but require derivatives to change the name to avoid misleading or confusing users. This is what Firefox and many other projects do.
TBH weโre not really into strictly following the letter of the law in the pirate community
In the video announcing the project Louis Rossmann explicitly says he intends to vigorously enforce this license. Since it is a copyright license, the only ways of actually enforcing it are to send DMCA takedowns and/or sue people for copyright infringement.
I have found three comments from you, where you insert yourself as an expert on what Open Source is/not is. Although you do link to some sources, you do so without arguing your point. IMO this is not a constructive way of communication. Since I believe your perspective is purist but overall not too helpful, I will go through the trouble an actually argue the point:
Your problem is following sentence published by the OSI: โThe 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.โ Which FUTO does - they wonโt allow you to put ads on top of their software and distribute it. But I hope that you would agree with me that GNU GPL is an Open Source License. However, they do have a copyleft which practically makes selling software impossible. If you use a library which uses the GPL, you have to make your sources available - which makes selling a compiled version a difficult taskโฆ
If we look at Wikipedia, we see following sentence: โGenerally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design.โ, Grayjay fulfils this. Wikipedia continues: โ{โฆ}. Depending on the license terms, others may then download, modify, and publish their version {โฆ}โ, you are allowed to download and modify Grayjay. They do not allow you to commercially distribute your modifications, which is a license term.
Lets look at a big OSS company. Red Hat writes: โAn open source development model is the process used by an open source community project to develop open source software. The software is then released under an open source license, so anyone can view or modify the source code.โ These criteria are fulfilled by the FUTO TEMPORARY LICENSE (Last updated 7 June 2023). Red Hat does not mention the right to redistribute anywhere I could find it.
To those who actually read up to this point: I hope you find this helpful to form your own opinion based on your own research.
since you copy+pasted this wall of confused text to me in 3 different places I guess Iโll reply here too, in the not-deleted thread: opensource.org/authority/ (this is not even a controversial topic)
You can argue that โopen sourceโ can mean other things that what the OSI defined it to mean, but the truth of the matter is that almost everyone thinks of the OSI or similar definition when they talk about โopen sourceโ. Insisting on using the term this way is deliberately misleading. Even your own links donโt support your argument.
Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use for any (including commercial) purpose, or modification from its original design.
Open source is a term that originally referred to open source software (OSS). Open source software is code that is designed to be publicly accessibleโanyone can see, modify, and distribute the code as they see fit.
In actuality, neither free software nor open source software denote anything about costโboth kinds of software can be legally sold or given away.
But the Red Hat page is a bad source anyway because it is written like a short intro and not a formal definition of the concept. Taking a random sentence from it and arguing that it doesnโt mention distribution makes no sense.
Here is a more comprehensive page from Red Hat, that clearly states that they evaluate whether a license is open source based on OSI and the FSF definitions.
I find it strange that they immediately called it a โbetter ReVancedโ, when apart from the feed thing it doesnโt have nearly as many features as ReVanced.
Has anyone come up with an actual reason to switch? Because I have a feeling ReVanced is still better?
grayjay.app
Hot