Don't they? I'm aware of the events that took place when they released it. But seems they've solved licensing by now. There is a License.md in that repo since a few months. FUTO seems to even have written blog posts about their licensing, detailing why they do it. In short: They like to call it open source, while it's not. It's source available. Seems from their posts, they mainly want to exclude commercial use, but I'm not sure about their legalese, and the actual license text restricts how people can share and modify it. But the licensing is there by now.
Comment on [deleted]
autonomoususer@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Warning, GrayJay fails to include a libre software license text file. We do not control it, anti-libre software.
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 months ago
Ephera@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
Well, any software needs to include a license of some form, if you want it to be usable by others. But if it’s not an open-source or libre license, then it’s a proprietary license. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. At that point, it depends on what’s actually written into the license. But it’s also not a good thing, as you miss out on various open-source benefits due to there being no proven legal compatibility with open-source licenses. Well, and if I remember correctly, FUTO’s license actively prohibits reuse of the code anyways.
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 months ago
I share your opinion. They seem to have clarified a few things, though. Their license states what kind of reuse is allowed. You need to read it thoroughly. For example you can study the code or adapt it for personal hobby projects, if it's non-commercial and you add the required statements... But I think it's completely unappealing to use GrayJay or contribute to the project. It's not Free Software, so you don't get much in return. They tell you you should send pull requests, but as far as I can see there is no way of logging in to their GitLab. So you somehow need to hunt down their GitHub mirror, and file something there, in the hopes someone is going to read it amongst the hundreds and hundreds of open bugreports... And their phrasing and use of the term "open source" is just annoying and bound to confuse people. I'm not sure what Louis Rossman is doing these days, but when they launched it, he was making videos with lots of outright false claims about the licensing. A lot of that hasn't been ideal. I've sent them some comments back in 2023. But they never replied directly. I believe they took notice of the discussion and promised to step up their game concerning their community. But I don't think they're doing a particularly good job. And I suspect they lack a deeper understanding of what Free Software is, what it's good at, how to foster a community that's not just alike what you get on Youtube as a creator.
But I'm not mad at them. As long as they keep Louis' promise of not prosecuting any individual for getting confused by their mixed signals. They seem to be mildly successful with whoever their target audience is. Guess I'm just not a part of that. But I have NewPipe/Tubular, my browser with the proper Ad-blocking in place, so I can live a comfortable life without GrayJay.
Ulrich@feddit.org 2 months ago
But being libre doesn’t make it anti-libre.
autonomoususer@lemmy.world 2 months ago
‘Open source’ is a very ambiguous, confusing, phrase that makes it too easy to get scammed out of libre software (and ‘closed source’ and proprietary).