Testing it out and it defaults to 720p30 (30fps I assume). When I switch it to 1080p60, video playback begins to freeze/lag. So, sticking with revamced for now.
This seems to be a problem with every third-party YouTube client. NewPipe, LibreTube, and Piped all have the same issue for me. They desperately need better buffering logic. I suspect Google is doing something on their end to make this harder than it needs to be.
Didn’t have an issue with NewPipe.
There is a setting for the default quality for unmetered and metered connections.
Been running it at 1080p no problem for several days.
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.
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.
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
the site works fine for me
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.
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.
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.
good luck suing someone in a country like Russia, China or any other where these things are super hard to enforce
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?
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
This is not an app for YouTube without ads though, and it is published on the play store already…
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.
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.
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 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.
This is not an app for YouTube without ads though, and it is published on the play store already…
I’m aware, I used YouTube because in the video they used Newpipe as a direct comparison.
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.
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.
Those countries have their own domestic solutions already, rutube and bilibili
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.
They video was quiet promising. However looking at the app website shows that what was a false promise. The app does track every single launch and sends that to their servers (see privacy policy) not legal without consent in the EU. Calling this “tracker free” is more than misleading here. I’d call it a lie actually.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=5DePDzfyWkw
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I’m intrigued, but this seems like the perfect spot to put malware.
Edit: Ok, so this comment I’ve replied to is a link to a video, not a link to download an app or extension like I thought it was.
Its open
sourcecode and Louis Rossman has a big following. If it ever gets anything malicious put in it the world will know quickly.It isn’t open source, the licence violates point six of the open source definition
it’s open source, just not Open Source
It is open source. And it is free as in beer. It’s not free as in speech though. But I understand his reasons and they are justifiable IMO given the android ecosystem.
From my limited understanding, open source means a very specific thing. So this is just “source available”.
Yeah “Open source” can be many things and the definition is often misused. I would say it’s FOSS without being FLOSS. As you say “source available”.
Are we talking about Grayjay from the video or the link in the comment I replied to?
The license chosen expressly allows him to release the dogs on anyone who modifies the app for the purposes of malware distribution
The app is open source. Rossman even tells you to check yourself
That would help if I had any idea what I’m doing with code.
I just know I see a comment with a link to something different from what’s in the video posted above, and I’m not sure about clicking that link in the comment.
it’s open source. feel free to check and compile it yourself.
In fact, Louis adresses the malware problem in the video
I’m not asking about the video, it looks legit. I’m wondering about the comment with a link that I replied to.
This send to be quite heavily marketed on here. So many threads on this app throughout my feed.
I dislike the use of a YouTube video over a web page, but that might just me being old fashioned
Yeah most apps are just webpages in a wrapper, so maybe they’re going to do that.
It’s even the same on desktop, like the discord, twitch or teams apps.
Most is maybe not the best word to use here. Many desktop apps are browser-based these days, but it’s fairly uncommon in the mobile landscape.
Yeah, most might be an overstatement, but uncommon is also not the reality, just did a quick Google search.
Webapps: Google Apps (Google Docs, Google Drive, Google Calender, etc.) Zoom Spotify YouTube Skype LinkedIn Amazon
Native apps: Instagram Ebay WhatsApp Blinkist McDonald’s App AirBnB TikTok
I don’t really see a tendency there.
None of those are web-based on mobile.
How do you know?
I’m a native app developer for Android, which gives me some professional insight into what’s web-based or not.
