Grayjay is not Open Source

rglullis@communick.news to Free and Open Source Software@beehaw.org – 136 points –
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.

90

You are viewing a single comment

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"

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.

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

Cool. Somebody should let Richard Stallman know, I guess.

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"

1 more...

Why does OSIs definition matter over any other definition?

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.

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

How is this an answer to my question? Multiple people in the thread have shown alternative definition sources

So you can't link a single one? That's what I thought...

Hey nevermind, someone else actually gave a real answer

Seems like my super-complicated answer was too hard to digest.

You didnt give an answer. You asked for other definitions, which the comments are filled with.

Tbh I kinda thought you didnt even know other people had alternate definitions

Do you need me to link you to other comments in this thread? Or are you not actually able to answer the question?

Is this a hard question to answer?

My comment is the answer to your question. I can't help you read.

1 more...