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

71–80 of 108 posts

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#71

Post by alexvoda »

tcfhgj wrote: post #67
wokwokwok wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don’t care if it is or not, but this has been discussed to death with regard to unreal and the consensus has been (from epic) to consistently refer to the source as “available on GitHub” not as “open source”, because that gives people an incorrect impression of the permissiveness of the license. Is this a hill you really want to die on? It doesn’t matter at all. The “can see code” = “must be open source” a…

"because that gives people an incorrect impression of the permissiveness of the license" How does it? "Source available is unambiguous" It's not, because it could be hidden behind a pay wall.

If it's behind a pay wall it's not available, it's closed.

But you may call source-available software whatever you want, just not open source unless it's under and OSI-approved license.

You can use any words other than the phrase "open source" to be as unambiguous as you want.

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#72

Post by wokwokwok »

tcfhgj wrote: post #67
wokwokwok wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don’t care if it is or not, but this has been discussed to death with regard to unreal and the consensus has been (from epic) to consistently refer to the source as “available on GitHub” not as “open source”, because that gives people an incorrect impression of the permissiveness of the license. Is this a hill you really want to die on? It doesn’t matter at all. The “can see code” = “must be open source” a…

"because that gives people an incorrect impression of the permissiveness of the license" How does it? "Source available is unambiguous" It's not, because it could be hidden behind a pay wall.

I don’t understand.

If you feel it’s not explicit enough be more explicit (source is available from xxx of you login or whatever).

If you want a legal opinion, get a lawyer, that’s what they do.

If you just want to do what’s “normal”, take a successful project (eg. Unreal) and do what they do.

It seems like a total non issue.

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#73

Post by tcfhgj »

alexvoda wrote: post #70
tcfhgj wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Malicious is the attempt to restrict open source to floss and start a shitstorm about open source but not floss software, because it prevents transparency for software where floss isn't an option. If I define climate neutral as climate positive, climate neutral doesn't become climate positive nor do I get authority of the term climate neutral.

And yet that is absolutely the kind of bullshit you are pulling. Thank you for denouncing yourself. Some terms were defined by a community and their use defended. Others were defined by a community, appropriated by others, distorted by others and subsequently abandoned by the original community. And yet others, were abandoned and then reclaimed by the original community. "Open Source" is in the first category, define…

"And yet that is absolutely the kind of bullshit you are pulling. "

Nope it's what you and OSI try to do.

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#74

Post by Timshel »

zakki wrote: post #42
koen31 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plugin is not in the pipeline right now. However, anybody can make a plugin (see https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/plugins for examples). We will also publish more docs soon to help people get started (heres a small getting started doc https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master... ). Perhaps in the future once we have a bit more time we can spend more time adding platforms.

What is the license for the plugin?

All plugins appear to be under AGPL v3 cf: https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/plugins/youtube/-/blo...

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#75

Post by 6510 »

vasco wrote: post #66
alexvoda wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A judge saying something once in the history of the world doesn't make it so that you can force language on others. Most people that I've interacted that work in software refer to "source available" as open source in every day speech, and unless they were preparing legal documents that's what they'd say. If you include normal people that don't work in software, then even more likely the usage is the one you're compla…

> Most people that I've interacted that work in software refer to "source available" as open source

Proprietary software and closed source refer to the same thing.

Most people you've interacted are wrong. sorry...

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#76

Post by vasco »

6510 wrote: post #75
vasco wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A judge saying something once in the history of the world doesn't make it so that you can force language on others. Most people that I've interacted that work in software refer to "source available" as open source in every day speech, and unless they were preparing legal documents that's what they'd say. If you include normal people that don't work in software, then even more likely the usage is the one you're compla…

> Most people that I've interacted that work in software refer to "source available" as open source Proprietary software and closed source refer to the same thing. Most people you've interacted are wrong. sorry...

Luckily I didn't mention either "closed source" or "proprietary software" in my comment. I mentioned that people colloquially use "open source" to refer to any code base that has source available to read.

Maybe there's some hidden point you're trying to make by associating these concepts but it'd be easier if you said it plainly.

Other than that I think you find that people in real life don't tend to be exact in their use of language all the time, and calling understandable imprecisions "wrong" tends to decrease the number of friends you get.

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#77

Post by orlandohill »

Sytten wrote: post #44
judiisis wrote: post #17

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

At the end of the day that is why I decided to not be open for my business. Even if you try to be on the good side its hard and you have the eternal source available vs open source debate. I wish they would develop a license friendly to both businesses that want to ship software that is source available and users of that software. One could strike a balance between full OSS and legitimate needs of the producer to liv…

The PolyForm Project has a suite of standardized, source available licenses for when using an OSI-approved open source license is inappropriate. They probably could have used PolyForm Noncommercial instead of drafting their own license.

https://polyformproject.org/licenses/

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#78

Post by tarruda »

geraltofrivia wrote: post #13

I'm not super technical but if someone knows, I would love to know how does it pull the video from Youtube/Twitch in the first place? Like wouldn't Youtube try and block sending data to this application somehow? Wouldn't twitch? If not today then when it pops up on their radar, and has a meaningful dataplace.

Also not certain about details of how it works, but there are open source youtube frontends that manage to do this, while also adblocking:

- https://github.com/TeamPiped/Piped - https://newpipe.net/

IIRC piped uses a network of proxies which is exposed as a service, so youtube is not even aware of what clients are watching.

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#79

Post by alexvoda »

vasco wrote: post #76
6510 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people that I've interacted that work in software refer to "source available" as open source Proprietary software and closed source refer to the same thing. Most people you've interacted are wrong. sorry...

Luckily I didn't mention either "closed source" or "proprietary software" in my comment. I mentioned that people colloquially use "open source" to refer to any code base that has source available to read. Maybe there's some hidden point you're trying to make by associating these concepts but it'd be easier if you said it plainly. Other than that I think you find that people in real life don't tend to be exact in thei…

People distort words to the point of meaningless unless the use of those words are defended. "Open Source" is a term that is actively being defended.

The history of the term is very clear. The term was coined by Christine Peterson in a group session in 1998 with Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Michael Tiemann, and Eric S. Raymond. Months later the OSI was created by the same people in order to manage that definition. There is nothing unclear here. "Open source" is defined by OSI and it has been defined by them from the very start.

If communities let others distort words, those words loose their meaning. As a well known example, the word "woke" which has long been abandoned by the community that coined it.

"Open source" is an actively defended term by the organisation that originally defined it and the community around them.

Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms

#80

Post by vasco »

alexvoda wrote: post #79
vasco wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily I didn't mention either "closed source" or "proprietary software" in my comment. I mentioned that people colloquially use "open source" to refer to any code base that has source available to read. Maybe there's some hidden point you're trying to make by associating these concepts but it'd be easier if you said it plainly. Other than that I think you find that people in real life don't tend to be exact in thei…

People distort words to the point of meaningless unless the use of those words are defended. "Open Source" is a term that is actively being defended. The history of the term is very clear. The term was coined by Christine Peterson in a group session in 1998 with Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Michael Tiemann, and Eric S. Raymond. Months later the OSI was created by the same people in order to ma…

Well if you're actively consciously defending it like that I can only wish you good luck. I guess if that's the goal comparing you to Stallman with GNU is more of a compliment than anything.
Post reply on HN