Have you used it? Itās like NewPipe except that itās better in almost every way. The ONLY downside is that itās just old-fashioned open source instead of FOSS.
Incorrect. People have been calling random software open source since the 80s, because itās a very vague term. The new definition that you think is gospel wasnāt invented until the OSI was formed in '98.
It is open source but you canāt publish modified code (this is to ensure there will be no malicious forks like there was with newpipe)
that is not open source. That is source available.
because we all know that license agreements are a line that trojan distributors will not cross. Not malware distribution, not hacking laws, but copyright infringement. They'd never do that at all.
because we all know that license agreements are a line that trojan distributors will not cross. Not malware distribution, not hacking laws, but copyright infringement. Theyād never do that at all.
I believe it would be significantly easier to submit a takedown request for copyright issues, compared to reporting an app for being malicious.
That's not the case at all. These kind of Trojan operations are fly-by-night setups, and have the advantage of being able to react far faster than the official Devs. By the time you as the dev even know of the app's existence, they've already infected hundreds. And when you do get round to filing a takedown notice, they'll be back up the next day under a different name.
Even Nintendo can't get copyright infringing shit off Play Store in any fast capacity. Heck, Google will even run ads for people blatantly breaking copyright laws.
Edit: and that's before considering that Google won't let them onto play store and being only source available excludes them from eligibility for official F-Droid repos. They're going to have an absolute bitch of a time dealing with fakes and Trojans, even if they didn't release the source code at all
Open source licenses must allow free redistribution. FTL allows license suspension and termination at any time, without notice, for any or no reason.
Open source licenses must allow source code distribution. FTL allows restrictions to access the code at any time, without notice, for any or no reason.
Open source licenses must allow modifications. FTL allows modifications only for non-commercial use, or maybe not even that. FTL dodges the word modifications here, no clue.
Open source licenses must explicitly allow distribution of software built from modified source code. FTL forbids distribution of software built from modified source code for commercial use.
Open source licenses must not discriminate against persons/groups and fields of endeavor. FTL allows license suspension and termination at any time, without notice, for any or no reason.
The FTL enables the following practices:
Copyright holders can change the license terms.
Copyright holders can re-license everything.
Copyright holders can target specific groups and individuals with discriminatory license terms.
Copyright holders can close source everything.
Copyright holders can forbid specific groups and individuals from using their work.
I guess itās understandable to be concerned about licensing when putting money and work into a project like this, but I still hope they change their mind.
Thatās not the problem. The question is, stopping actors that put ads and paywalls behind modified source, which technically isnāt malicious, itās just being a jerk and this licensing makes it much easier to take down. Ofc, if he actually wanted it to be open source, heād just force all derivatives to be non commercial.
The point is, that anyone who tries to make money by ad-bombing the app and adding it to the playstore will be punished. If you post your virus-infected fork in the far-behind edge of internet-nowhere Louis would not care about that. Otherwise: why do you not ask him yourself if you want to post your own fork and under which conditions that should be possible. If you ride principles, then develop your own app that is much much better and FOSS than grayjay. Nobody stops you.
The source is literally not āopenā. It doesnāt make sense to say that without referring to open source.
Saying the source is available to see, that makes sense though.
There have always been multiple definitions of āopen sourceā. Thatās why itās always best to specify. If you mean FOSS, say FOSS. Donāt use an ambiguous term like āopen sourceā.
Open source is not an ambiguous term. FOSS stands for āfree and open source softwareā. It extends the word you claim is ambiguous with the word āfreeā. That word actually is ambiguous as in other cases it could mean āgratisā and not āit grants itās users freedomā.
How is that better than the more established term with the very clear definition by the OSI? Itās okay if you mixed these terms up. I just donāt understand what youāre trying to do here.
No, youāre telling people theyāre wrong and it is open source. Not to use other, more precise terms. I hate to have to explain your own argument to you, but you seem to not know what youāre saying.
Well luckily thereās no arguments necessary, as we have the definition by the OSI. I actually rarely see any discussion about that, and when I do itās mostly ill-informed comment sections.
It is an interesting project, not sure where it goes. The title is deeply misleading though. The features of ReVanced make YouTube so much better, whereas this project doesnāt seem to be about making YouTube better so much as circumnavigating YouTube for the comment boxes and as your hub to creators. They seem to be doing different things.
So, I really want to be optimistic about this project. I love that it integrates multiple sources, that it lets you use different identities that are not attached to any of these services. I installed it and already paid for it even, because I love initiatives like this.
I think itās unsustainable. In 5 years, everyone whoād use the appās already paid for it, which means the devs have no incentive to continue to work, and funding dries up. When that happens, theyāll of course just let the app run until the plugins stop working. Nobody will be able to pick it up and continue development in an open forum because itās not FLOSS.
My hope is they re-license it under a copyleft license later, but Iām not optimistic about that happening. With how things are now, it does appear to be doomed to enshittification.
Yeah FOSS or FLOSS (your teeth ^^) is the only viable solution we have found that really works. Itās like Democracy IMO, criticize them all you want but thatās the only ones that works over time.
You just described why subscriptions are rampant in the software industry.
We use to have upgrade pricing and paid major revisions for software. But things changed to progressive models. And then things like what you described came along over extended periods of time.
As long as Rossmann has a say in the ordeal I doubt itāll enshittify. If it they canāt carry it anymore, I think theyāll re-license it.
But in any case, Iām really glad to see effort toward this. Because I may be naive, but I think this will make viewers & potential devs aware that itās possible to have a great experience consuming video without being tied up in Youtubeās basement, and I predict will inspire more FOSS in the same vein.
ReVanced taps into my history with microg. When I watch stuff on desktop with Firefox and uBlock Origin, I want those videos to show as watched on my phone when I open ReVanced so I donāt get recommended the same stuff. That works.
GrayJay canāt do this. Itās not better. Itās a good idea, but itās a side grade.
As lemann pointed out thereās a setting for that in the YT add-on im the sources tab, not the app settings. Also myself and others have had loading issues with Revanced. Itāll start playing, suddenly start buffering and never stops. Grayjay works as it should and still has the settings I want from Revanced. Not to argue, just want to let others in my situation know Grayjay is the upgrade we need.
Thatās what I saw in a reddit post way back but updating and reinstall never fixed it. I was using YT on browser for a while just because it was more reliable and didnāt have ads. UI sucked ass though. Ky biggest critique on Grayjay so far is the lack of vertical swipes to adjust volume/brightness.
Tried it out a bit. I Ike the idea of the app being basically an rss read for video platforms. This is great for not having a bunch of apps (twitch app/Xtra for twitch and YT app/Newpipe/skytube/etc. for YT.) A user profile and allowing app comments are nice to have on the app.
However, Iām worried about what Rossmann says in regards to profit and maintenance. The app is moderated/worked-on by (I think paid) professionals and we should pay a license of $9.99 yet the app is also unprofitable and may never turn a profit. So, whatās the point in paying for the app?
Rossmann has a millionaire backing up his repair business among other things. So, is some of this being funded by that person and other investors of FUTO or is our money the only thing keeping this afloat? How are these workers getting paid if itās a one time payment and the money is uncertain? How is the platform going to stay up and pay fair wages? The app is niche and I canāt see too many people paying for a license. I also canāt see too many workers staying unless they are passionate. Something isnāt adding up unless Iām wrong.
There are plenty of projects that take donations/payments that donāt make profit but stay afloat, normally through the team behind it paying the bills. I guess it depends what the running costs actually are, and if itās for people or e.g. servers.
However, Iām worried about what Rossmann says in regards to profit and maintenance. The app is moderated/worked-on by (I think paid) professionals and we should pay a license of $9.99 yet the app is also unprofitable and may never turn a profit. So, whatās the point in paying for the app?
By paying for the app, youāre merely donating to FUTO. As Rossmann mentioned in his video, it is completely optional to pay.
Thereās nothing wrong with any app being unprofitable IMO. Public transport and car infrastructure is unprofitable and we donāt have a problem with thoseā¦ heck even my personal website is unprofitable, thatās about $200-300 a year being funnelled into something nobody uses or visits.
Rossmann has a millionaire backing up his repair business
This is incorrect
Rossmannās personal repair business is financially independent from his employer, FUTO, who only partially sponsors Rossmannās R2R advocacy with the assistance of community donations. Rossmann frequently publishes hour long videos on his main channel crawling through the finances, and has spreadsheets online for public viewing where viewers can do an audit themselves
So, is some of this being funded by that person and other investors of FUTO or is our money the only thing keeping this afloat
AFAICT, FUTO is comparable to organisations like NLNET - the same people at sponsor the Lemmy devs. The aim is generally not to fund projects forever, but to eventually open source them after theyāve been developed to the agreed level of functionality. Seeing as this app is mainly a Rossmann initiative there could be an exception here though - such as Rossmann donating his own money towards development.
The app is niche and I canāt see too many people paying for a license
I also canāt see too many workers staying unless they are passionate. Something isnāt adding up unless Iām wrong.
A lot of people who follow Rossmann are passionate about R2R, actually owning what you pay for, and not giving excessive control to monopolies like Google.
Grayjay is more along the lines of this spirit, and as soon as they have their DHT video hosting thing ready Iāll gladly donate some of my storage space towards it š
Yep. And a right libertarian. I stopped watching him when he went from repair content to months long complaining about taxes and talking up Florida and Texas as some great place. Honestly, I am 100% convinced that the only reason he even cares about right to repair is for his work. He has shown no signs of caring about anyone else other than himself in any of the dozens of hours of content I watched of his.
Iām so glad I trained under Jessa at iPad Rehab instead of taking his course.
Heās always felt off to me. And itās not just because Iām into Apple products. I find it hard to articulate. But I see Iām not alone, thanks for sharing.
Yeah I was in the industry when he got big, and it was hard not to love his anger towards Apple, but eventually it became apparent he was just an angry person and Apple was only his current target. Once he had secured his platform, he felt more comfortable to share his absurd views, and I fear he influenced many impressionable people towards the right with his rhetoric. Dude is not who I want representing the repair community.
the only reason he even cares about right to repair is for his work
This is exactly it. I appreciate that heās a strong advocate for it, and heās a single issue voter/lobbyist, but he really wouldnāt care about it if it wasnāt his business. As can be seen in how, while he so strongly believes in a right for third parties to maintain hardware, he very clearly doesnāt believe in a right for third parties to maintain software with this app being source-available and not FLOSS.
Rossmann has a millionaire backing up his repair business among other things.
Why does everybody seem to know all of this dirt about Louis except me? Iāve seen this ābe suspicious of anything Rossman is involved inā comment a few times in the past few days. Iām out of the loop.
There are no ad blocking YouTube apps on iOS so I suspect Apple blocks them. The DMA will soon let us in the EU install whatever we like, but fuck Apple.
Publishing on iOS creates a whole plethora of hurdles because everything you install has to first be approved by Apple. This is an Apple problem. The founder of the company has said he doesnāt like developing for iOS for this reason.
I just bought the FUTO voice input app as well from them and itās genuinely amazing. It has punctuation where it needs to. It cuts out all the UMās. And the best part is, I donāt have to pretend that Iām talking to a robot. I can just speak as if Iām talking to a normal person and it gets it right nearly every single time. It is so worth the $5.
This entire comment was typed with it, and I did not edit a single thing.
Thank you so much for this suggestion. Itās really a great step towards the end of tedious voice messages. Works great but is a bit slow when using the multilang voice model. I donāt mind.
I wouldnāt classify it as a better revanced, but that doesnāt matter, thanks for sharing this awesome tool I really liked it, I first started incorporating Matrix in my life, then a couple days ago Lemmy, and now this, itās great
This is why Iām excited for it. Alternatives simply do not have the breadth nor depth of videos YouTube does, but if the same content is found on either platform, you bet Iāll pick an alternative. Itās an onramp to other services.
the point of this is a new youtube is unlikely to take off because people canāt start using it without missing all their regular content.
this means you can keep all your regular content and add new sources, with the same creators, which means they can start to move to new platforms and take their followers. thatās how weāll replace youtube.
They can get forks taken down from legit places like GitHub, but this is the piracy community, isnāt it?
Anyway, have you actually used the app? Itās fucking amazing, it works flawlessly in my experience. I played with it for an hour and immediately gave them ten bucks, itās better than NewPipe, ReVanced, everything Iāve tried.
The patching is meant to convey that message of never paying, by removing the option and prompts + nags to pay, as well as create the experience of an app that is entirely free without such nags. Such patches exist for WinRAR as well to enhance user experience.
I can understand why someone would say open source
I can understand why too: itās either because they were not aware of the widely agreed-upon definition of the term, or because theyāre being disingenuous. Iām assuming it was the former; whether OP edits the post will reveal if it was actually the latter.
The source is freely available, but it does not fit the common definition of open source. Namely, youāre not allowed to redistribute with tracking, malware, or adds. I guess this has been a problem with piped?
It is not free software but it is open source. Stop gatekeeping the term. I can look at the code and modify it to my hearts content. I can also watch as the project is being developed. That means itās open source. It would be free software if you where also allowed to redistribute it but I can fully see why they do not want that
i guess you didnāt click the link in my comment? here is another, with a list of governments and other entities who all agree about the definition: opensource.org/authority/
It isnāt about the list of approved licenses, itās about the criteria for being added to the list. New licenses regularly meet the definition. This license clearly does not.
oh cool, if Edward Snowden did it I guess software freedom isnāt important anymore š
But seriously, did he? which one? Iām not familiar with that.
But even if he did release something under one, I would be extremely surprised if he called a non-free license āopen sourceā as FUTO is doing here.
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: āThe 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.ā Which FUTO does - they wonāt 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 taskā¦
If we look at Wikipedia, we see following sentence: āGenerally, 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.ā, Grayjay fulfils this. Wikipedia continues: ā{ā¦}. Depending on the license terms, others may then download, modify, and publish their version {ā¦}ā, 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: āAn 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.ā 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.
since you copy+pasted this wall of confused text to me in 3 different places I guess Iāll reply here too, in the not-deleted thread: opensource.org/authority/ (this is not even a controversial topic)
You can argue that āopen sourceā can mean other things that what the OSI defined it to mean, but the truth of the matter is that almost everyone thinks of the OSI or similar definition when they talk about āopen sourceā. Insisting on using the term this way is deliberately misleading. Even your own links donāt support your argument.
Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use for any (including commercial) purpose, or modification from its original design.
Open source is a term that originally referred to open source software (OSS). Open source software is code that is designed to be publicly accessibleāanyone can see, modify, and distribute the code as they see fit.
In actuality, neither free software nor open source software denote anything about costāboth kinds of software can be legally sold or given away.
But the Red Hat page is a bad source anyway because it is written like a short intro and not a formal definition of the concept. Taking a random sentence from it and arguing that it doesnāt mention distribution makes no sense.
Here is a more comprehensive page from Red Hat, that clearly states that they evaluate whether a license is open source based on OSI and the FSF definitions.
This whole discussion is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It depends completely on how you define open source, and there is no single universally agreed upon definition. Per this article, there are over 80 variations of open source licenses all with different term and conditions. Some are more permissive, some less so. Yet they can all be considered a variation of open source, though Iām anticipating you wouldnāt agree? For this particular app, there are some restrictions in place aimed to protect users from malicious forks. IMO this is a good thing. I canāt understand why you are acting like the definition police here, it seems very pedantic tbh.
Many software buyers ā even new developers ā misunderstand the term āopen sourceā to mean the software is available to use, copy, modify, and distribute as desired. This misunderstanding may arise from confusing open source with public domain or shareware, both of which are free to use and modify without specific permissions or licensing.
The truth is that, for the most part, open-source software is covered by one of several types of open source licenses and is not necessarily free of charge either.
In contrast to proprietary software where vendors typically make it impossible to access, copy or modify the source code, open source code permits the use, reuse, sharing, modification, and distribution of the code in other programs or applications. But just as with proprietary software licensing, open source software is subject to various legal terms and restrictions, depending on the type of open source license in force.
there is no single universally agreed upon definition
There is an overwhelmingly agreed-upon definition. Look at who agrees with it: opensource.org/authority/
And who doesnāt agree? Historically, a few of the giant software companies who were threatened by the free software movement thought that āopen sourceā was a way for them to talk the talk without walking the walk. However, years ago, even they all eventually agreed about OSIās definition and today they use terms like source-available software for their products that donāt meet it.
Today it is only misinformed people like yourself, and grifters trying to profit off of the positive perception of the term. Iām assuming Louis Rossman is in the former category too; weāll see in the near future if he acknowledges that the FUTO license is not open source and/or relicenses the project under an open source license.
there are over 80 variations of open source licenses all with different term and conditions. Some are more permissive, some less so. Yet they can all be considered a variation of open source, though Iām anticipating you wouldnāt agree?
There are many open source licenses, and many non-open-source licenses. there is a list of licenses which OSI has analyzed and found to meet their definition; licenses which arenāt on that list can be open source tooā¦ but to see if they are, you would need to read the license and the definition.
I canāt understand why you are acting like the definition police here, it seems very pedantic tbh.
Itās because (1) FUTO are deceiving their customers by claiming that their product is something which it isnāt, and (2) theyāre harming the free and open source software movements by telling people that terms mean things contrary to what they actually mean.
You make some good points, but whether it exactly meets every criteria of open source software as per that definition or not, I really canāt bring myself to care that much either way. I get that itās important to you, and thatās fine, but not everyone cares that much about it. People can read and vet the source code, the intention of the project seems good, and the intention of the authors in deviating slightly from pure open source principles seems to be to protect their users from scammy clones, which also seems fine with me. TBH weāre not really into strictly following the letter of the law in the pirate community, and if this app helps people to avoid surveillance capitalism and puts even the slightest dent in Googleās massive profits then Iām all for it. Anyways, have a good one.
deviating slightly from pure open source principles
saying that prohibiting redistribution is just ādeviating slightly from pure open source principlesā is like saying that a dish with a bit of meat in it is just ādeviating slightlyā from a vegetarian recipe.
if you saw a restaurant labeling their food as vegetarian because their dishes were based on vegetarian recipes, but had some meat added, would you say that it seems like their intentions are good?
to protect their users from scammy clones
As I said in another comment, the way free open source software projects should (and can, and do) generally do this is using trademark law. He could license it under any free software license but require derivatives to change the name to avoid misleading or confusing users. This is what Firefox and many other projects do.
TBH weāre not really into strictly following the letter of the law in the pirate community
In the video announcing the project Louis Rossmann explicitly says he intends to vigorously enforce this license. Since it is a copyright license, the only ways of actually enforcing it are to send DMCA takedowns and/or sue people for copyright infringement.
Sadly itās for the large part the recommendation algorithm that Iām on YouTube for. Most of the videos I watch are from people Iām not subscribed to.
I was pleasantly surprised to see that it still carries that over! My Home feed (not subscriptions) has plenty of videos from channels Iām not subscribed to
Iām the same way, I watch (hate to admit) hours of YouTube every day. I do subscribe to a lot of people, but only after Iāve seen several of their videos and enjoyed them. Primarily I refresh the homepage and see if anything peeks my interest. In my personal opinion YouTube has one of the best algorithms, generally showing me a good mix of stuff Iām interested in (with addons and whatnot to hide the bullshit and recommended MSM garbage). Conversely Instagram and Facebook have some of the consistently worst algorithms, but I think Facebook is getting better about it, Instagram however NEVER shows me ANYTHING I could ever possibly care about and usually actively get annoyed by.
Yeah people have mixed opinions about that, but atleast in my case YouTubeās recommendations does a really good job at finding content Iām interested in. It just needs some training for it to do a good job. When thereās something Iām not interested in, I just flag it as ānot interestedā and then that stuff dissapears and is replaced with something else.
Oh yeah it works great, I just donāt like how the algo feels like itās trying to trick me into watching as long as possible. I enjoy the things I subscribe to but I donāt need YouTube to take up any more of my time.
It always keeps suggestion the same few things, and things from the channels Iām already subscribed to. Videos Iāve already watched often get in there, and itās very rare I get suggestions for relevant creators.
I follow way to many creators to have a sensible subscription feed, especially when I only watch some videos from some channels. If there were tiered subscriptions, Iād use them more. But right now I only use subscriptions for my tier 1.
I donāt agree, you need a way to discover new stuff (akin to going to /all). What I do hate is how they donāt give you the option to do anything but that. Or they give the option but itās incredibly annoying so you donāt use it. Like you canāt trust YouTube to show you the content from the people youāre subscribed to. You canāt trust them to even show their content on the homepage of the channel if you want to be sure you didnāt miss anything interesting you have to go channel by channel clicking in the videos and live tabs for anything the algorithm might deem not worthy
grayjay.app
Top