Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

grayjay.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 108 posts

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#61

Post by alexvoda »

tcfhgj wrote: post #56
alexvoda wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source does not mean you can look at the source code. Open source is defined by the OSI. If it is not using and OSI-approved license and claims to be open source it is open washing. Call it shared source or something else. This is a long since settled debate.

Yes, it does. It's the opposite of closed source, and the meaning is implied by the word open. OSI isn't authoritative of the term.

This debate has been had many many times before and you are simply wrong. Your effort is malicious.

Regardless of what other uses the word open has/had, "open source" was defined by OSI and they are authoritative over the term.

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#62

Post by alexvoda »

Sytten wrote: post #58
alexvoda wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source does not mean you can look at the source code. Open source is defined by the OSI. If it is not using and OSI-approved license and claims to be open source it is open washing. Call it shared source or something else. This is a long since settled debate.

That is not a settled debate IMO, even Stallman said as much. Sure its not FOSS / FLOSS, but trying to push for a position where open source doesn't mean I can see the code is very much not agreed by everybody. EDIT: See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

Just like Microsofts opinion didn't matter whenever they tried to dilute the meaning of open source, and just like MongoDB's and others opinion didn't matter, your opinion doesn't matter. Microsoft is far more convincing than you and they did not win this argument.

Microsoft gave up and now only calls OSI-approved licenses open source.

Open Source means OSI-approved.

If you can read the source code but it's not OSI-approved, than it's source-available or shared source or something else.

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#63

Post by wokwokwok »

tcfhgj wrote: post #56
alexvoda wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source does not mean you can look at the source code. Open source is defined by the OSI. If it is not using and OSI-approved license and claims to be open source it is open washing. Call it shared source or something else. This is a long since settled debate.

Yes, it does. It's the opposite of closed source, and the meaning is implied by the word open. OSI isn't authoritative of the term.

I honestly don’t care if it is or not, but this has been discussed to death with regard to unreal and the consensus has been (from epic) to consistently refer to the source as “available on GitHub” not as “open source”, because that gives people an incorrect impression of the permissiveness of the license.

Is this a hill you really want to die on?

It doesn’t matter at all.

The “can see code” = “must be open source” argument is stupid because it’s entirely opinion based. You cannot be right about it.

It depends what you choose to define “open source” as. If you define it as some arbitrary thing (eg. I can read the source code) then of course you’re right. …but you can’t force other people to accept your arbitrary definition.

You can only have an opinion about it.

Same as anyone else.

Is it really worth the argument?

Source available is unambiguous, being explicit (“source can be download from GitHub”) I means you don’t have to waste your time on arguments like this for, what seems, truely trivial reasons.

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#64

Post by tcfhgj »

alexvoda wrote: post #61
tcfhgj wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it does. It's the opposite of closed source, and the meaning is implied by the word open. OSI isn't authoritative of the term.

This debate has been had many many times before and you are simply wrong. Your effort is malicious. Regardless of what other uses the word open has/had, "open source" was defined by OSI and they are authoritative over the term.

Malicious is the attempt to restrict open source to floss and start a shitstorm about open source but not floss software, because it prevents transparency for software where floss isn't an option.

If I define climate neutral as climate positive, climate neutral doesn't become climate positive nor do I get authority of the term climate neutral.

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#65

Post by jillesvangurp »

tcfhgj wrote: post #59
alexvoda wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a settled debate. You will not convince anyone to use your definitions. We had this debate when MongoDB switched, when CockroachDB switched and for many others. And nothing has changed. Open source means OSI-approved licence and that will not change. This is shared source or source-available, not open source.

You aren't authorative for the term either. And, obviously, thanks to your comments, the debate doesn't seem to be settled.

The debate only exists in the heads of apologists for shared source. The OSI definition exists to remove the need for a debate. It's either OSS or it isn't per their definition.

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#66

Post by vasco »

alexvoda wrote: post #54
tcfhgj wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be open washing if you couldn't look at the source code, but you can.

Open source does not mean you can look at the source code. Open source is defined by the OSI. If it is not using and OSI-approved license and claims to be open source it is open washing. Call it shared source or something else. This is a long since settled debate.

A judge saying something once in the history of the world doesn't make it so that you can force language on others. Most people that I've interacted that work in software refer to "source available" as open source in every day speech, and unless they were preparing legal documents that's what they'd say. If you include normal people that don't work in software, then even more likely the usage is the one you're complaining about. You sound like this: https://stallman-copypasta.github.io/

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#67

Post by tcfhgj »

wokwokwok wrote: post #63
tcfhgj wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it does. It's the opposite of closed source, and the meaning is implied by the word open. OSI isn't authoritative of the term.

I honestly don’t care if it is or not, but this has been discussed to death with regard to unreal and the consensus has been (from epic) to consistently refer to the source as “available on GitHub” not as “open source”, because that gives people an incorrect impression of the permissiveness of the license. Is this a hill you really want to die on? It doesn’t matter at all. The “can see code” = “must be open source” a…

"because that gives people an incorrect impression of the permissiveness of the license"

How does it?

"Source available is unambiguous"

It's not, because it could be hidden behind a pay wall.

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#68

Post by Timshel »

otikik wrote: post #60
judiisis wrote: post #17

It is not Open Source as claimed by Louis Rossmann https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master...

This is addressed on the video here: https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?t=628 TLDR: they used an OSI-approved version on a previous app, someone forked it, filled it with ads, and published it in the app store trying to make it look like the original one. They are ok with people modifying the app, just not doing that. I am not saying that this is the best approach, but that is their justification at least. To me personally…

Note: the forked app in question is NewPipe and not done by them.

> They are ok with people modifying the app, just not doing that.

And the license is more restrictive than that I believe. If they drop the project without changing the license I'm not sure you could fork it while asking for donation (Depends on how you interpret: "directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation").

As for malicious forking as other mentioned you can use trademark to prevent it.

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#69

Post by tcfhgj »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #65
tcfhgj wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't authorative for the term either. And, obviously, thanks to your comments, the debate doesn't seem to be settled.

The debate only exists in the heads of apologists for shared source. The OSI definition exists to remove the need for a debate. It's either OSS or it isn't per their definition.

Interesting rejection of reality

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#70

Post by alexvoda »

tcfhgj wrote: post #64
alexvoda wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This debate has been had many many times before and you are simply wrong. Your effort is malicious. Regardless of what other uses the word open has/had, "open source" was defined by OSI and they are authoritative over the term.

Malicious is the attempt to restrict open source to floss and start a shitstorm about open source but not floss software, because it prevents transparency for software where floss isn't an option. If I define climate neutral as climate positive, climate neutral doesn't become climate positive nor do I get authority of the term climate neutral.

And yet that is absolutely the kind of bullshit you are pulling. Thank you for denouncing yourself.

Some terms were defined by a community and their use defended. Others were defined by a community, appropriated by others, distorted by others and subsequently abandoned by the original community. And yet others, were abandoned and then reclaimed by the original community.

"Open Source" is in the first category, defined by OSI and defended by the FLOSS community. It is actively being defended, and fish much bigger than you have failed to topple the community.

Post reply on HN