Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

grayjay.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 108 posts

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#51

Post by koen31 »

Lycake wrote: post #39
koen31 wrote: post #16

As one of the devs of the project, I will try to answer your questions as much as possible.

Some creators have already branched out and are posting some of their content to multiple platforms (maybe with different titles/thumbnails targeted for the specific platform). That would show up in my feed multiple times and I would have to click on each to find out I've already watched it. Do you try to deal with that in any way?

Creators can create a polycentric identity and link their platforms together using the Harbor app. If you are then subscribed to their YouTube channel, you will also see content they post on any other platform like Patreon, etc.

You subscribe to the creator, not the platform identity.

There are also very simple dedup algorithms to try and deduplicate your feed. However, they can probably still be improved.

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#52

Post by tcfhgj »

alexvoda wrote: post #35
koen31 wrote: post #16

As one of the devs of the project, I will try to answer your questions as much as possible.

Please tell Louis he is damaging the project by calling it open source when it is not. If you want to be Free Libre Open Source Software then use an OSI and FSF approved licence. If you want to be FLOSS and protect your brand from people cloning your app, do like Mozilla and use a trademark + MPL. If you don't want to be open source don't call it open source, it's shared source or something else. I told him and he di…

He called it open source, not floss, didn't he?

It's not shared source, since anyone is able to inspect the source code, not just a subset of people

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#53

Post by EarthAmbassador »

It would be very nice if once all those sources are aggregated with this tool, including hopefully all YouTube, X, and FB lists, saved items, histories, and browser histories, that all of this can be downloaded as a .CSV we can use to train our own local LLMs.

Getting our data out of these platforms is a feat!

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#54

Post by alexvoda »

tcfhgj wrote: post #50
alexvoda wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can use whatever licence they want. It's their software. They should only call it open source if they use an OSI-approved licence. Doing otherwise is openwashing and is frowned upon.

It would be open washing if you couldn't look at the source code, but you can.

Open source does not mean you can look at the source code. Open source is defined by the OSI.

If it is not using and OSI-approved license and claims to be open source it is open washing. Call it shared source or something else.

This is a long since settled debate.

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#55

Post by Sytten »

wizhi wrote: post #47
Sytten wrote: post #38

Their plugin system is interesting, they embedded a V8 engine to run JavaScript to then make some api calls to the various platforms. I am 99% sure this is against each platform ToS and that they will get sued by Twitch, YouTube, etc. Especially since they are asking people to pay. But I wish they good luck!

Is this any different from other alternate YouTube apps like NewPipe?

Newpipe scrapes the HTML, its against the ToS but harder to block.

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#56

Post by tcfhgj »

alexvoda wrote: post #54
tcfhgj wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be open washing if you couldn't look at the source code, but you can.

Open source does not mean you can look at the source code. Open source is defined by the OSI. If it is not using and OSI-approved license and claims to be open source it is open washing. Call it shared source or something else. This is a long since settled debate.

Yes, it does. It's the opposite of closed source, and the meaning is implied by the word open.

OSI isn't authoritative of the term.

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#57

Post by alexvoda »

tcfhgj wrote: post #52
alexvoda wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please tell Louis he is damaging the project by calling it open source when it is not. If you want to be Free Libre Open Source Software then use an OSI and FSF approved licence. If you want to be FLOSS and protect your brand from people cloning your app, do like Mozilla and use a trademark + MPL. If you don't want to be open source don't call it open source, it's shared source or something else. I told him and he di…

He called it open source, not floss, didn't he? It's not shared source, since anyone is able to inspect the source code, not just a subset of people

This is a settled debate. You will not convince anyone to use your definitions. We had this debate when MongoDB switched, when CockroachDB switched and for many others. And nothing has changed.

Open source means OSI-approved licence and that will not change.

This is shared source or source-available, not open source.

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#58

Post by Sytten »

alexvoda wrote: post #54
tcfhgj wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be open washing if you couldn't look at the source code, but you can.

Open source does not mean you can look at the source code. Open source is defined by the OSI. If it is not using and OSI-approved license and claims to be open source it is open washing. Call it shared source or something else. This is a long since settled debate.

That is not a settled debate IMO, even Stallman said as much. Sure its not FOSS / FLOSS, but trying to push for a position where open source doesn't mean I can see the code is very much not agreed by everybody.

EDIT: See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#59

Post by tcfhgj »

alexvoda wrote: post #57
tcfhgj wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He called it open source, not floss, didn't he? It's not shared source, since anyone is able to inspect the source code, not just a subset of people

This is a settled debate. You will not convince anyone to use your definitions. We had this debate when MongoDB switched, when CockroachDB switched and for many others. And nothing has changed. Open source means OSI-approved licence and that will not change. This is shared source or source-available, not open source.

You aren't authorative for the term either.

And, obviously, thanks to your comments, the debate doesn't seem to be settled.

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#60

Post by otikik »

judiisis wrote: post #17

It is not Open Source as claimed by Louis Rossmann https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master...

This is addressed on the video here:

https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?t=628

TLDR: they used an OSI-approved version on a previous app, someone forked it, filled it with ads, and published it in the app store trying to make it look like the original one. They are ok with people modifying the app, just not doing that.

I am not saying that this is the best approach, but that is their justification at least.

To me personally, as long as I can see the source and modify it, it is open source. OSI-certified is a subset of that. OSI clains that they "define" Open Source, and I think that is mostly true, just not 100%.

The fact that OSI doesn't have a license which prevents the malicious forking mentioned above seems like an indication that they won't (or can't) cover some cases that I believe are open source.

Post reply on HN