So... is there any 'official' mirror by now? I mean the one that the original author and maintainers are using, not just all possible mirrors created by the community, there are dozens of them of course.
YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
71–80 of 110 posts
Re: YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
#72Original source code is still hosted on their website[1], for now.
Re: YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
#73Earlier 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 incorrect. Open Source is an alternative term for Free Software[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_terms_for_free_sof...
Re: YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
You are thinking of Source-Available Software[1], not Open Source. The sets of Open Source and Free Software licenses are (almost) identical. OSS == FOSS == FLOSS == FS, etc.
Re: YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is also an interesting case for github. youtube-dl is popular enough that this just might annoy enough people to find an alternative way to collaborate on it. Meanwhile github becomes “that platform that might kill you project”
I'm surprised this comment is (currently) more than halfway down the page, when this was my first thought when I saw the repo takedowns.
The comment is back up at the now.
Re: YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Invoke DMCA against whom? The specific project or in general?
Hm, I misremebered the patent clause in apache2 - I thought it revoked both copyright license and patent license - but it is limited to the patent. At any rate my suggestion/idea was to take inspiration from: > If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contribu…
Again invocation of the DMCA against whom, the original license issuer for that specific project or for any party and cause?
The patent clause in Apache is rather common in various FRAND and open standard agreements to prevent the project from being taken hostage in disputes between corporations.
If you apply something similar to a wide spread license like GPL for example it means that if I’m hosting a website running on FOSS with this license software that hosts say copies of Netflix shows Netflix can’t use DMCA against me because they also use FOSS software under the same license.
Re: YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
#77Side Question : Is there a distributed alternative to github ?
Yes, Fossil.
Re: YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
#78Genuine 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.
Agreed, but we could clarify it. If you sue or take any legal action against an open source program, you forfeit the right to use any software that is open source, forever.
Which basically means you can no longer use a computer, which in pratice should be a strong enough deterent.
Re: YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
#79Genuine 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 :/
Keep in mind there is no singular we. There will be code monkeys you agree with. There will be code monkeys you dont agree with. There will be code monkeys you sorta agree with. They would all start to make their own lists. You'll be on some of this lists. All we've really ended up doing is fragmenting the internet more.
I think all coders can agree that censoring code should be pretty high up on the list of developer commandments. This should rally all developers.
Re: YouTube-dl source code encoded in two images
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Agreed, but we could clarify it. If you sue or take any legal action against an open source program, you forfeit the right to use any software that is open source, forever. Which basically means you can no longer use a computer, which in pratice should be a strong enough deterent.
But how would that be enforceable?