The idea behind this whole enterprise is great. And, generally speaking, this is what software and service developers should do: sell products, not people.
Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
91–100 of 108 posts
Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
#92When's the iOS version coming? Will there even be one considering the payment system?
Feels like it would be a big risk developing this for iOS when it seems likely Apple would not be keen on allowing something like this on their store, regardless of how payments work.
Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
#93As one of the devs of the project, I will try to answer your questions as much as possible.
Please tell Louis he is damaging the project by calling it open source when it is not. If you want to be Free Libre Open Source Software then use an OSI and FSF approved licence. If you want to be FLOSS and protect your brand from people cloning your app, do like Mozilla and use a trademark + MPL. If you don't want to be open source don't call it open source, it's shared source or something else. I told him and he di…
> calling it open source when it is not
At first please define "open source".
1. Do you use this term as an alias for "The Open Source Definition" [0] as presented by the Open Source Initiative? In such case, the Grayjay project's license seems to not meet this definition.
2. Do you use it in a more general sense to mean any software whose source code is publicly available? In such case, the Grayjay project fully meets this definition.
[0] https://opensource.org/osd/
I would be very cautious to assume that the term "open source" must always and in all contexts be interpreted as having the meaning described by the definition 1.
Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
People distort words to the point of meaningless unless the use of those words are defended. "Open Source" is a term that is actively being defended. The history of the term is very clear. The term was coined by Christine Peterson in a group session in 1998 with Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Michael Tiemann, and Eric S. Raymond. Months later the OSI was created by the same people in order to ma…
Well if you're actively consciously defending it like that I can only wish you good luck. I guess if that's the goal comparing you to Stallman with GNU is more of a compliment than anything.
I’m not a fan of Stallman by any measure — his posture has often put people off some licenses and made GPL a bit problematic —, but even I think you’re engaging in unreasonable doublespeak.
The web is full of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript you can see the source for; and for which you can be sued by copying for your own commercial gain. By your definition, websites are open source; and yet, they are proprietary work. Something having its source open doesn’t make it Open Source.
This kind of doublespeak reeks of Reddit-grade corporate astroturfing.
The Open Source licenses are defined and protected in a certain way. You can’t just say “oh, me and my friends don’t think of it like that” and expect to be correct. I can’t build an app scamming people out of currency by abusing ISO 4217, and then excuse myself under “me and the people I know disagree with ISO”. OSI protects the licenses, the Vegan Society certifies what ‘vegan’ means, ISO does ISO things, and so on.
It’s okay to admit we’re wrong or ignorant, so I won’t pretend I’m an expert in this area. I also wouldn’t call anyone Stallman just because they are defending a term that deserves protection. “Source available” but not under the terms of an OSI license is NOT compliant with the term.
Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
#95Their plugin system is interesting, they embedded a V8 engine to run JavaScript to then make some api calls to the various platforms. I am 99% sure this is against each platform ToS and that they will get sued by Twitch, YouTube, etc. Especially since they are asking people to pay. But I wish they good luck!
Can't you use the APIs without accepting the TOS?
I’m not sure about these specific platforms, but we consume a lot of APIs at work for which we must agree to specific conditions of these APIs. That seems reasonable, otherwise the TOS cannot be enforced (because they can be ignored).
Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
He called it open source, not floss, didn't he? It's not shared source, since anyone is able to inspect the source code, not just a subset of people
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.
Doesn't seem like this is a settled debate at all.
Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
#97Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
#98Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
#99As one of the devs of the project, I will try to answer your questions as much as possible.
Please tell Louis he is damaging the project by calling it open source when it is not. If you want to be Free Libre Open Source Software then use an OSI and FSF approved licence. If you want to be FLOSS and protect your brand from people cloning your app, do like Mozilla and use a trademark + MPL. If you don't want to be open source don't call it open source, it's shared source or something else. I told him and he di…
Christ, no one goddamn cares if it's open source or not! It's an app sourly needed right now.
Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most people that I've interacted that work in software refer to "source available" as open source Proprietary software and closed source refer to the same thing. Most people you've interacted are wrong. sorry...
Luckily I didn't mention either "closed source" or "proprietary software" in my comment. I mentioned that people colloquially use "open source" to refer to any code base that has source available to read. Maybe there's some hidden point you're trying to make by associating these concepts but it'd be easier if you said it plainly. Other than that I think you find that people in real life don't tend to be exact in thei…
> Maybe there's some hidden point you're trying to make by associating these concepts but it'd be easier if you said it plainly.
I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious.
As "proprietary software" and "closed source" refer to the same it wouldn't be logical to use the opposite "open source" to refer to "proprietary software".
People don't have to be exact in their language, the point is for the other to understand what you mean.
I consider it the most polite and the most constructive to use the definition from the believers themselves.
Academic, as in relating to education and scholarship. Anarchy, as in without Archons. Archons, as in leaders of ancient Greek city-states. Let the communist define what it is, let the socialist, let the Jew, let the ufologist etc
There is the Open Source Initiative, the page starts with what they consider Open Source. https://opensource.org/osd/
Besides practicality the website also states: Never use or register any trademarks that are confusingly similar to, or a play on, the OSI or OSI Logo. An example of unacceptable is given: "Open Source Project"