this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
227 points (87.5% liked)
Technology
59377 readers
3170 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I watched that earlier. Seems promising. I like that it's open source but restricted enough that they can (at least try to) shut down anyone who forks it specifically to add ads or trackers. And it must be getting some interest because I haven't been able to get the site to load yet.
It isn't open source, the licence violates point six of the open source definition
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
This would definitely fall under the "source-available" category.
It's definitely FOSS. (Fake Open Source Software)
FOSS means Free Open Source Software
Woooooosh!
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.
Nope, the license forbids that.
This is source available
Do you have a quote from the license to prove that? Louis Rossman himself said we're free to grab the code and edit it.
The quote: "Subject to the terms of this license, we grant you a non-transferable, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to access and use the code solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution."
Source: Section 2.1 of https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/raw/master/LICENSE?ref_type=heads
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
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.
I'd say that is open source. But not free and open source
OSI's definition is the oldest and original definition. It's decades old at this point.
It's source available, nothing more.
Yeah, and shit changes. Remind me again what the IT landscape looked like decades ago?
It was better.
Don't know why people are downvoting you here. This OSI definition definitely isn't modern and doesn't match what people expect when they see open source.
the site works fine for me.
The problem I encounter is, that loading the subscriptions from youtube triggered a crawler detection on youtubes side, and I currently can't load anything that is by YT. Bit annoying
Interesting. Must be my internet as I've tried on multiple machines and I get a timeout.
you like them removing your freedom?
In this case, very much so. Freedom to distribute other people's software after surreptitiously adding trackers is freedom to do harm. In much the same way as I like people not having the freedom to come smash my windows and then try to cut me with the glass.
look, I understand you're all followers this "influencer" or whatever. But this is not a novelty feature. Newpipe has been allowing access to YouTube videos in a similar matter for a long, long time. And their app is truly free software, anyone's able to view, edit and distribute the code.
So if this dev is telling everyone that the reason for them using a not open/libre license is to impede people putting trackers on top, that's absurd.
Specially taking into account that real a malicious actor won't give a fuck about the license, take the code and put ads or whatever anyway.
What the license is stopping are legitimate community forks. There's a fork of Newpipe that adds Sponsorblock support, for example, which comes super handy. If community forks weren't allowed, it wouldn't be possible at all.
They can sue his ass. New Pipe cant
good luck suing someone in a country like Russia, China or any other where these things are super hard to enforce. At most, they can request Google to remove them from the PlayStore which they will be already doing because this is an app for YouTube without ads, which I'm pretty sure breaks Google's terms of service.
there's not a real advantage on restricting forks, other than the original dev are trying to promote a paid tier so they can make a profit or something.
Those countries have their own domestic solutions already, rutube and bilibili. Why would they care about an app that only caters to western media products and monetary contribution sites?
This is not an app for YouTube without ads though, and it is published on the play store already...
Well, no point having a discussion here if you didn't even spend 2 mins to read the manifesto of the company that owns the app.
This argument is absurd. Why would they care? They do not care about western media, but malicious developers living in such countries will try to make some money by inserting ads and distributing the app, for example. Or just putting malware.
I'm aware, I used YouTube because in the video they used Newpipe as a direct comparison.
I read the whole web page, and all I can see is an app that is purposefully restricting forks, so they want to be the only ones distributing it. That alone makes me suspicious that there must be some reason like paywalling it in the future or adding some way of making them money. Of course they are not doing it at launch, but it's something to be cautious about specially when looking at the license.
No idea about bilibili, but rutube is pretty much dead and a complete laughingstock. Everyone there uses Youtube.
Sure someone could make a malicious version of this app and share it, but the reason why they have this license is so that they can have the legal power to be able to get those versions shut down. They don't want to have the problem that they mentioned newpipe has, where malicious versions can being distributed on popular channels such as the official app store.
Having watched the video and skimmed the licence, it seems like you can view, edit and distribute the code. The stipulation they added is that you can't add anything malicious or monetize it. I don't see anything that would prevent the equivalent of the newpipe version with sponsorblock
It seems alright to me, but I guess there will always be people who aren't happy unless they give up every ounce of control over their own creation. Maybe it's because of the open source title, because yeah it might not live up to some of the strictest definitions out there.
strictest definitions? it does not meet either the free software definition originally given by the free software movement, nor the original definition of open source by Eric S Raymond, not the open source definition given by the Open Source Initiative, nor the definition given by Wikipedia.
So this license does not meet any definition at all.
I won't elaborate on the other points because it's clear we're in disagreement here. I'm just saying that the license is NOT open source.
this is the dumbest fucking analogy I've ever heard. yes, Linux is the equivalent of letting people break your windows and stab you with the broken glass. A tier brain rot take
Didn’t watch the video?
Individuals are free to do whatever, but you’re not allowed to redistribute with a bunch of shit tacked on.
that's effectively taking away your freedoms. If there can't exist community forks that can maintain the app if the original dev cease development or decides to add anti features, then you're being restricted.
If you’re free to upload work you didn’t do, with malicious changes meant to make money, that you can promote above the original, you’re freedoms should be smacked.
From when taking someone's work, improving it and then selling became unacceptable?
In physical world we did not expect IKEA to grow their own trees. In science world we do not expect mathematican to reinvent whole math every time doing something.
People selling or giving away some software and expecting they still should have control over copies they sold are just doing harm. It's 2023 and some still cannot accept the fact that digital copying exists. Get over it and make money on doing new work, not creating artifical licence to force numbers into being a scaresity.
You consider doing nothing but adding advertisements an improvement? O.o
No, I consider trying to remain control over software even after selling it an unacceptable attempt, because of the consequences it makes to what it means to have a copy of some software.
Blocking modified versions with bad things added is in my opinion is not enough reason to turn code from freely usable math into a controlled product.
That's because having a choice between ad version from random guy and adfree version from origin creator, noone is going to choose the mod. And if Louis want to prevent situations like with NewPipe, there is a thing just for that: trademarks.
a) You’re not paying for code, you’re paying for access to the app… kinda. You can fork it and kill off the part which controls access making it free.
b) This isn’t an open source app, just like many of the applications out there. Complaining that it’s more open but not fully open is weird. Especially when it’s being made clear that as an individual user you can do whatever you want with it, as long as it’s not release a malicious version publicly.
c) Trademarking doesn’t prevent anything from the newpipe situation. Have you looked at app stores? They are full of fully trademarked names being used on unofficial apps. Because trademark means literally nothing on [insert appstore here].