Watched Louis Rossman today, and he’s part of the team behind a new app for watching online video content - not just youtube, but nebula, peertube, twitch and more.

adblock already integrated, works amazingly with a quick test on my end - it’s an app in the Lemmy spirit

(it’s got a paid model similar to winrar, you don’t have to pay - but they do want you to - opensource and all)

  • ToxicWaste
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    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: “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.” Which FUTO does - they won’t 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 task…

    If we look at Wikipedia, we see following sentence: “Generally, 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.”, Grayjay fulfils this. Wikipedia continues: “{…}. Depending on the license terms, others may then download, modify, and publish their version {…}”, 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: “An 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.” 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.

    • patatahooligan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      You can argue that “open source” 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 “open source”. Insisting on using the term this way is deliberately misleading. Even your own links don’t support your argument.

      A bit further down in the Wikipedia page is this:

      Main article: Open-source software

      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.

      And if you go to the main article, it is apparent that the OSI definition is treated as the de fact definition of open source. I’m not going to quote everything, but here are examples of this:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitions
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Open-source_versus_source-available

      And from Red Hat, literally the first sentence

      Open source is a term that originally referred to open source software (OSS). Open source software is code that is designed to be publicly accessible—anyone can see, modify, and distribute the code as they see fit.

      What makes software open source?

      And if we follow that link:

      In actuality, neither free software nor open source software denote anything about cost—both 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 doesn’t 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.