• jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And violates point 1 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. … commercial distribution is forbidden in the license.

      And violates point 3 The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

      and violates point 4 Integrity of The Author’s Source Code no patch files are explicitly allowed_

      and point 6 - you already covered

      the futo license in question: https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/raw/master/LICENSE?ref_type=heads

    • vector_zero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      The source is available on their gitlab instance, so whether it not it conforms to some specific definition of open source, the source code is readily available for anyone to view and modify.

    • thisfro@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      That is one definition of open source

      I agree that it is great to meet all these criteria, but especially restricting commercial use is a pretty reasonable thing to do

      • JohnEdwa
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I would say that Open Source, by any definition of the word, does have the assumption that you are allowed to modify and publish what you create at least in some form or another, even if it would be under a non-commercial clause or a license with other requirements.

        When the licence explicitly says all you are allowed to do is access the code “solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution”, that’s not open source.

        • thisfro@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          When the licence explicitly says all you are allowed to do is access the code “solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution”, that’s not open source.

          I’d say that is open source. But not free and open source

      • Two@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        OSI’s definition is the oldest and original definition. It’s decades old at this point.

        It’s source available, nothing more.