this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
187 points (97.9% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

53779 readers
340 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-FiLiberapay


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I've heard of piped due to the piped-link bot, but I am curious about others.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] figaro@lemdro.id 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

GrayJay just launched and it's fucking fantastic.

It combines YouTube and Twitch into one platform in a really intuitive way. Has its own comment system and rating system for videos. No ads obviously. It's a whole fucking thing and it's incredible.

https://grayjay.app/index.html

[–] sir_reginald@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

and it's not free software. only source available with a license that doesn't allow forking.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And they do it so they can take down malicious copycats on Google Play

[–] yum13241@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Which they could already do, with basic trademark law and just forcing all derivatives to be non-commercial. Cyrptominers are commercial.

[–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 11 months ago

Forcing all derivatives work to be non-commercial is incompatible with being open source.

https://opensource.org/osd/

Though I agree that they can already prevent usage of their app name with trademark laws.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So what's the actual problem is? It's just a front end to other platforms, they will not lock you in and than break the app. You can use it and if it goes bad you switch to other front end. I would understand the 'not free' objections if it was a tool you introduce into our workflow that would later be hard to replace. Here there's no lock in. What do you care if it can be forked?

[–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Some people (including me) care about software freedom. The ability to fork and redistribute software while continuing to publish any changes to the code is great.

Not using an open source license but a source available license is not something that I like to see, but it's their right to do so. There're enough open source YouTube frontends like NewPipe and LibreTube.

PS: What I really don't like is them using the term open source. Open source is a well known term that's well defined. Source available describes exactly what this app is without implying the freedoms associated with open source.

https://opensource.org/osd/

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

With some tools open source has many advantages, with others it's mostly about transparency. IMHO this case is the latter case. You won't gain much by being able to fork it. I don't like it when people criticize projects only because those don't align with their personal philosophy. Don't use it if you don't like it but there's really no good reason for others to avoid it.

[–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 11 months ago

All people have their priorities. For most people on this community it's probably being free of cost but for some freedom is also important.

I also don't recommend against using software that's not perfect according to my personal philosophy, but I think it's important to point out any advantages and disadvanages so that anyone can decide for themselves. As I said, most people on here won't care about the difference between source available and open source.

it's mostly about transparency

Good point. If they'd use the term source available I'd have nothing to say. The reason I'm so pedantic is because increasingly businesses try to gain good publicity by calling their software open source while using Business Source License and similar, which are source available licenses.

I'll definitly follow this project and look where it's going.

[–] soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

Except you have to give one app credentials for all of your platforms. It's also 335MB!?

[–] henrikx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Time to upgrade if your phone can't handle 350MB lol

[–] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago

Credentials? What are you talking about? There is not sign in or signup required for the app at all.

[–] jackmarxist@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

It's the universal build. Download for your architecture (arm64) which is 127 mb