Seems like this tweet was also taken down.
YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
51–60 of 110 posts
Re: YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
#52Re: YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
#53Distributing the code is not an issue. It’s keeping development moving when YouTube changes their apis.
Linux kernel is developed[0] nicely without GitHub. All that’s really needed is a mailing list and someone (who doesn’t fear Google or RIAA suing them personally) willing to host the DVCS server.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Source_code_manag...
Re: YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
#54Seems like this tweet was also taken down.
Nah, just "modern web". Tweeter always loads once in 10 times for me.
Re: YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then it’s no longer open-source projects.
Open Source is not the same as Free Software and does not say much about the license other than that the source can be viewed. At least that is my understanding.
Your understanding is correct. Open source means nothing more than you can view the source. It's just typically open source software also comes with a license that allows you to use it free, either with MIT or similar.
OSS !== FOSS
Re: YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
#56How does it work anyhow? It must do more than `wget` the mp4
Re: YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the logic that gave us the PATRIOT Act, the full consequences of which have yet to be understood.
I'm not from the US so I have no idea what's the history of the PATRIOT Act, but I get the concept, it's just F *ed up and we cant do shit about it
Created after the 9/11 plane hijackings, people were scared.
“Never let a good crisis go to waste“ comes to mind.
Re: YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
#58Genuine question, how viable is it, if we (code monkeys) created some sort of a blacklist of the entities that are not allowed to use our open source projects? -- something like "We don't support Internet Explorer" but a bit more aggressive? like "These entities don't understand the Internet, we don't support them, they cant use our software"? Maintaining that list would be a ton of work and edge cases tho :/
Any organization you create to manage such a list will be captured by non-programmers with an agenda that is political and stops serving the original purpose. They will play favorites.
Premature throwing of the white towel.
Original contributors are in charge of the distribution restriction.
The organization is purely operational and enforces distribution restrictions, per original authors’.
They can infiltrate the distribution org as much as they want, as long as the original author to org hand-off is legally constrained. The main puzzle is what is that legal mechanism, which may be nothing more than licensing.
Re: YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
#59Most countries are being pressured into converging on a global set of copyright laws (among others), so unless we demand and can realise changes in the law , this is going to be a perpetual battle of attrition, and the other side's job in done when it becomes inconvenient enough for widespread use. They don't need to wipe something out completely.
Copyright convergence is mathematically divergent: some nation extends copyright by a positive integer value, so must all the others. An infinite series of positive integer values cannot converge to an integer value. However, comfort may be found in that this is a process of countable infinity.
Re: YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
DMCA does have legitimate uses, though. If someone was stealing my IP, I'd certainly consider invoking it. It just becomes a problem when big companies with lawyers™ use it to stop someone from doing something legal that they don't like.
Maybe. Some will argue for software parents too. Copyright infringement was illegal before the DMCA and I'm not convinced it improves things. In fact, I'm pretty sure we'd be better off if it was repealed.
Isn't one of the largest benefits of DMCA the safe harbor protections? Like you said, copyright law exists without DMCA, in which case the Githubs and Youtubes of the world could be sued.