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.
Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
81–90 of 108 posts
Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
#82Earlier 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…
Normal people don't even know what to do with the code. If a project is source open or not is completely irrelevant to them. To them usually it's way more relevant that open source software can be picked up and further developed by any other software developer and that it's free.
Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
#83It 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…
>and you have the eternal source available vs open source debate.
How has this stopped you from being source available for your business? :)
Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
The debate only exists in the heads of apologists for shared source. The OSI definition exists to remove the need for a debate. It's either OSS or it isn't per their definition.
Interesting rejection of reality
Why do non programmers know about open source if it doesn't concern them? They don't have any benefit from an source open application besides maybe theoretically better security audits. I would arue is because people expect that you can pick it up and change the code, so it can be forked and continued in the future and also because it's usually free.
It's also not the only deceptive Adventisten. He also claimed that you can use it how you want the only use case they want prevent is injecting ads into their app. But that could be better solved with a trademark.
Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
#85Interesting project. Too bad it doesn't (yet?) support iOS.
I have some doubts whether this would be permitted on the App Store. YouTube could argue that this is piracy and Apple might side with them. Still, they could distribute the package (and let people side load it on jailbroken devices or through XCode if they are developers). Grayjay is not on the Play Store either, afterall. But the audience is probably too small to bother.
Maybe that changes in a few Month when Apple has to open up at least in Europe to other App Stores.
Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
#86Earlier 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…
Normal people don't even know what to do with the code. If a project is source open or not is completely irrelevant to them. To them usually it's way more relevant that open source software can be picked up and further developed by any other software developer and that it's free.
In this case, the licence they have chosen explicitly:
- only grants the right "to access and use the code solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution."
- only grants the right "provide the code to anyone else and publish excerpts of it for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution"
- "you are not entitled to use or do anything with the code for any commercial or other purpose, other than review, compilation and non-commercial distribution"
This breaks all 4 freedoms the free software definition and at least aspects 1,3,4 and 6 of the OSD.
From a legal POV, this project is unforkable. You are not allowed to modify this in any way (even just for your own use).
Furthermore, you are not even allowed to use this internally (unmodified and without ever distributing it). I am not even sure it is possible to legally be a user of the software for its intended purpose. The license states clearly that "other than review, compilation and non-commercial distribution" you "are not entitled to use or do anything" and that includes using the compiled result to watch videos. This is about as restrictive as the MS-RSL.
Basically, the only thing you can do with it is archive it and look at it. (and wait lifetime + 70 years until it becomes public domain)
Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
#87When's the iOS version coming? Will there even be one considering the payment system?
Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
#88It 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…
> One could strike a balance between full OSS and legitimate needs of the producer to live off their creation.
That is what the BSL is for. It is not an open source license but it is a source available licence that automatically transitions to an open source license after a predetermined amount of time.
Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't install, only ever get "Problem parsing the package" with the universal and the specific apk. What is the minimum required Android version? I'm still on 9
We are minimal SDK 29 right now ( https://developer.android.com/tools/releases/platforms ) we will look into lowering the requirement to Android 9, there seem to be quite a lot of requests for that.
So, I'm out of luck with by Android 5 and 8? :((((((
Re: Grayjay – Follow Creators Not Platforms
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Note: the forked app in question is NewPipe and not done by them. > They are ok with people modifying the app, just not doing that. And the license is more restrictive than that I believe. If they drop the project without changing the license I'm not sure you could fork it while asking for donation (Depends on how you interpret: "directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation"). As for malicious forki…
After looking a bit more at the license, I am not even sure it is possible to use it for the intended purpose.
It clearly states "you are not entitled to use or do anything with the code for any commercial or other purpose, other than review, compilation and non-commercial distribution".
That means that if you compile it unmodified, you are NOT entitled to use the compiled binary to watch videos. You are not entitled to install or execute the binary. You are not entitled to use it in any way other than reviewing it.
This is what happens when idiots get creative with licenses.