- cross-posted to:
- piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- technews@radiation.party
- cross-posted to:
- piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- technews@radiation.party
Quick shout-out to Grayjay: An app to watch videos on any platform - reducing the power of individual services. The Software is open-source and can be found here: https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay
I will test this out for myself and hope someone here finds this useful.
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s viewable source, the license does not allow modification and distribution of the modifications. The license also reserves the right to be revoked at any time.
It’s source available, but it is not what most people would consider open source in the common usage.
Exactly. Beware of the inevitable enshittification down the line. Once they have the market share, they have no reason not to close their source
I trust Louis Rossman not to do that. He explained the only reason for the current license is to prevent people forking the app and putting it on the Play store with ads
deleted by creator
I see where you are coming from. Still i would argue that it is open source, since it is open for everyone to see.
The explanation for this more restrictive license was that they want to prevent what happened to newpipe. Some ppl repackaged newpipe with additional crap, put ads on it etc. They want to have the legal geounds to combat these things.
While I don’t think, they would go against me for forking it and tweaking things here and there - they have the legal ground to do so…
Still i would argue that it is open source, since it is open for everyone to see.
You are mistaken. Please read The Open Source Definition and the Open-source software wikipedia article, and then kindly edit your post to remove the inaccurate statement “The Software is open-source”.
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.
I wish somewhere on their site or anywhere in that description they’d say “Android App”.
I was a little disappointed as an iOS user browsing their site trying to find the iOS App Store link 😬.
Edit: I appreciate the advice to switch to Android but I really wasn’t asking. 😅
All you can hope is that some day they are forced to support 3rd party apps because of some anti monopoly lawsuit telling them they have too.
But good luck with that, Apple is very powerful and can probably just buy out the right lawyers and judges in that situation.
Or if they were forced to it would have an Apple twist on it like they get to approve the 3rd party app stores that are allowed or something.
Just get an Android phone you can put a custom ROM on and you’ll have a very good experience.
All you can hope is that some day they are forced to support 3rd party apps because of some anti monopoly lawsuit telling them they have too.
I’m not sure if you are aware already but the reason Epic are announcing a million changes to their business is that the previous business plan was based around them successfully throwing a fortune at suing Apple to force them to support 3rd party apps and they tried and failed.
I think if it were ever going to happen that way, Epic would have succeeded.
That’s not to say it won’t still happen one day through political means. Seems plausible the EU might force it at some stage.
That’s not how things work…
Not FOSS. So I don’t really trust it
What exactly do you mean by “trust”, here? Yes, it’s not fully FOSS, and I do understand why you wouldn’t like or use it because of that, but you can still verify the code, compile it yourself and build and run it with your own modifications, so how would being fully FOSS make you trust it more?
Can we get via Obtanium?
Sure, but it can also update itself.
Can you import from a newpipe backup?
Since they encourage ppl to write plugins, hopefully someone will write an import feature.
No, only from an existing YouTube account
deleted by creator
What’s wrong with the FUTO license?
AFAICT, the only restrictions are you cannot make money off it, and you can’t pretend to be the official app. Very similar to the Mozilla license, although Mozilla’s has some extra bits to be compliant with releasing on the App Store, which has its own licensing requirements that is not met by any version of the GPL
deleted by creator
Ohh I see, sounds like more of a principled reason then if i’m understanding you correctly
Edit: while Louis is accepting feedback on the license specifically, I doubt the project will move to something relicensable, since Louis specifically picked this license to prevent what is happening to NewPipe and the spread of malware using his name to gain trust. He’s also been burned a lot during the R2R stuff with unforseen loopholes abused by rival lobbyists, so the FUTO license is probably looking at things from a protectionist perspective, not as an individual from the FOSS community.
I’ve only heard of one OSS project relicensing in recent times, and they had to reach out to each individual contributor for written permission, hopefully this rings a bell for someone here because I can’t remember the project name…
I think this looks awesome. Curious if it will be added to F-Droid?
It’s not open source. It’s only source available.
amazed at the number of upvotes considering this software’s aim is to specifically combat de-platforming of creators, a practice that is by and large supported by the fake progressive community making up the majority on lemmy.
where did you find that gitlab link? it isn’t linked from the project website; looking at the website i would assume it isn’t free software.
edit: oh, i see it isn’t actually free software after all, it is under source ‘source visible’ proprietary license. 🥱
It isn’t free however they are very clear that they make no effort to make you pay for it. IE the app works whether you pay or not and they aren’t planning to change that. It’s not free in the same way WinRAR isn’t free. Here’s the announcement video from Louis Rossman where he talks about that. https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=KuNumtHUrtW_kHSC
yes, as i said, it is not free software.
it is also not open source software.
hey @ToxicWaste@lemm.ee can you please edit your post to remove the inaccurate statement “The Software is open-source”? you could say it is “source-visible software” or some other 🤡 term, but “open source” has a definition and this software’s license aint it.
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.
where you insert yourself as an expert on what Open Source is/not is
this is not really a controversial topic; assuming you were just confused, I linked to the definition and (in another comment you replied to) to the list of governments and other entities which all agree about it. i again encourage you to read those links as it sounds like you haven’t.
since you’ve declined to remove the inaccurate statement “The Software is open-source” from your post here in !privacy@lemmy.ml I am removing the post. (since I am an admin rather than a mod of the community, the moderation action will only federate to instances running the latest version of lemmy, which your instance isn’t, but fyi it should be removed from lemmy.ml and any other instances running updated software.)
fwiw i think this is the first time i’ve used my admin privileges to remove something in a discussion i participated in myself, which tbh feels a little weird, but since this is a clear case of someone declining to remove a post making an objectively false claim, i’m going to.
If only it didn’t require you to have a new phone to run it. (Minimum Android 10)
