> The issue with the non-standard license for the application stems from problems that arose with NewPipe, an open-source media player. When a video recommended downloading NewPipe, many people mistakenly downloaded a malware-ridden version from the Play Store. This fake version was loaded with ads and sometimes even required payment. The crux of the problem is that people were forking NewPipe, adding ads and trackers, and then asking for money on the Play Store. To prevent this kind of exploitation and deceit, the developers of the application in question opted for a less permissive license. This allows them to retain the right to take action against anyone who forks their application and tries to monetize it through deceptive means. They are committed to an ad-free, non-tracking application and don't want to engage in a business model where the user becomes the product.
I agree, hiring law professionals with proven expertise in the relevant domains can be a valid (and costly) way to do get assurance.
As the parent hints that there are documented ways to do this sort if thing with open source licenses I would like to hear from them how this is done, just because you or I don't know it doesn't mean that somebody else hasn't found a bulletproof, court trsted way to do this.
I find it curious that in the open source community we emphasize that the software is "free as in speech", yet if someone puts the source behind a paywall suddenly the "free as in beer" point becomes more important, and we argue that it's not _libre_ anymore.
I'm a firm believer in the benefits of the rights granted by F/LOSS, but think that we should normalize paying for both binaries and source code. Monetizing OSS is hard enough, and developers should have more ways of getting paid to write OSS, not less.
Giving the software and source code away _gratis_ can be unsustainable, and introduce perverse incentives that ultimately harm the user.
You mentioned "non-free paid" in your original comment, so it is an issue.
That official definition is problematic because it uses libre/gratis interchangeably, and in some cases actually requires the software to be given away gratis ("for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge").
I'm not able to see the license of Grayjay, but assuming it allows libre distribution and modification, it would still grant the user the most important freedoms of the strict OSS definition.
I find it counterproductive that the official definition even mentions software cost, which has nothing to do with the actual freedoms that benefit the user, and in turn harms the development of OSS.
This is a long settled debate. Open source means using OSI-approved licence.
The definition mentions cost of obtaining the source code for a good reason. A freedom that you are incapable of ever exercising is not actually a freedom.
If I give you the binary for open source software A for gratis or maybe sell it to for X$, you are now entitled to also receive the source code. If that clause would not be there what would stop me from charging you 1 billion $ for obtaining the source code.
The full statement of the definition is: "Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program."
It does not use libre and gratis interchangeably, it is very clear what the cost is referring to.
Eh, fair, I suppose. The mistake in this case was using the wrong term.
Semantics aside, I think fostering a sustainable ecosystem of software that respects users' rights is more important than forcing developers to give away their work for free.
> A freedom that you are incapable of ever exercising is not actually a freedom.
Charging for source code does not infringe any freedoms. Does owning a computer and using an internet connection also infringe on these freedoms because it has an associated cost? Why should paying for software be different?
> If that clause would not be there what would stop me from charging you 1 billion $ for obtaining the source code.
That's a silly argument. Nothing stops you, except that you might not have many users that would be willing to pay that amount. There's a world of possibilities between charging $0 and $1bn that would be acceptable for both developers and users.
Alternatively, you can use an OSI-compliant license to attract users and build your company, and then one day decide to switch to a non-OSI license, essentially extorting your users once they're already hooked.
Or, you can use an OSI-compliant license to attract users and build your company, but hide important features behind a paywall, or just neglect the OSS maintenance in favor of your commercial product.
Or, you can use an OSI-compliant license forever, and just work for free. Yeah, that sounds sustainable.
I believe only the source has to be given away for free. Which it is
The problem with that definition is it allows commercial distribution of said software, which futo's license prohibits on purpose since you could bundle the futo software with ads and call it your own software. The futo license prohibits commercial distribution of its software by others
