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

Grayjay Desktop App

grayjay.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 332 posts

Re: Grayjay Desktop App

#231

Post by apex_sloth »

lrvick wrote: post #205

I love the right to repair work Louis Rossmann does, and this project goal as a whole, but this license is a major step backwards for software distribution with high assurances of security, freedom and privacy. Debian, Arch, Guix, F-droid or any other independent signed reproducible build channels require a true Open Source license to function legally. The license thus forces users to download unsigned non-reproducib…

As I understand it, GrayJay is not free (as in they want to be paid, which is I think is reasonable). How does this work with something like AGPL?

I'm curious to hear more, because I'm in the process of evaluating licenses for a software I'm planning to build and sell. For me it's important that users can feel safe with running my code and build it themselves - and keep using the software if I'm no longer around to maintain it. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Re: Grayjay Desktop App

#232

Post by xmcqdpt2 »

globular-toast wrote: post #218
ASalazarMX wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, it is "Source First" license, dev(s) reasoning here: https://futo.org/about/futo-statement-on-opensource/

They make a very good case against corporate-friendly licences like MIT/BSD, which I definitely agree with, but say nothing about why they don't use AGPL. Honestly I think the problem with A/GPL is that they are considered "uncool". You just can't use them, because reasons. Who decides what is cool? That's right, the marketing departments of huge corporations...

AGPL would still allow a third party to fork their code and create a commercial product out of it, which is what they are opposed to.

The AGPL only requires that the host also provides their code.

Re: Grayjay Desktop App

#233

Post by braiamp »

Suppafly wrote: post #214
gtsop wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't see it as tone policing. From my point of view, I saw a very interesting application being shared and I hoped it would be good and prosperous so i can use it. When the first comment says "i hate that you do X" it is a bit discouraging towards a team of developers who have probably poured tons of free hours into making this. Words play with psychology, and it is my personal interest that these devs have good…

"i hate that you do x" is perfectly normal, you're being weird.

And that's not even the words used, they said:

> I absolutely hate like this

Re: Grayjay Desktop App

#234

Post by j1elo »

xmcqdpt2 wrote: post #230
j1elo wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the license and of course IANAL but it seems clear that Debian, Arch, Guix, F-droid or any other independent signed reproducible build channels can package and distribute their own reproducible builds of this software, as long as it is " free of charge for non-commercial purposes ", isn't it? (a FOSS license would also work, but if I have learned something in HN before, is that don't FOSS if you ever want to m…

You can take a copy of Debian and resell it or put it in a product and sell that. That’s a pretty important freedom of free software.

And Debian is OK with that, because Debian is not a for-profit company that paid it's developers money to make a product, thus they don't care that others get it and resell it.

For a company, the product itself, what makes money, cannot be OSS, as it makes its resell value effectively zero. If the software was OSS, then the software is _not_ the product, but added values are (support, consulting, etc... the classic trope)

But if the software itself wants to be the product, and is created by devs who require their monthly salary, typically the question is between a non-FOSS license or it not existing at all to begin with. Not between a non-FOSS and a FOSS license.

Re: Grayjay Desktop App

#235

Post by globular-toast »

xmcqdpt2 wrote: post #232
globular-toast wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They make a very good case against corporate-friendly licences like MIT/BSD, which I definitely agree with, but say nothing about why they don't use AGPL. Honestly I think the problem with A/GPL is that they are considered "uncool". You just can't use them, because reasons. Who decides what is cool? That's right, the marketing departments of huge corporations...

AGPL would still allow a third party to fork their code and create a commercial product out of it, which is what they are opposed to. The AGPL only requires that the host also provides their code.

No, it also requires that it's licensed under the AGPL, meaning the users get free software.

Re: Grayjay Desktop App

#236

Post by ferbivore »

em-bee wrote: post #226
ferbivore wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FUTO develops, for the most part, proprietary software that they plan to monetize. The license choice isn't some mistake that you can get them to recant by explaining the virtues of the AGPL and third party distributors. (They're already aware of these things; one of the products under their umbrella is Immich, which was relicensed to AGPL after they started employing the original developer, as a compromise between h…

while that is technically mostly correct, that does not properly reflect their intentions. they most certainly are interested in allowing you to fork their software as a user. but what they are also interested in is to prevent a fork to take revenue from the original developers. so you can most likely (i don't know the details) fork and change and redistribute the code. what you can not do is exploit that commerciall…

That's not a fork in the sense normally used by the free software community. It's better than nothing, to be sure, and if Xerox had adopted this license back in 1980 maybe we wouldn't even be talking about free software today. But FUTO still maintains some control over what your fork can and cannot do, which violates freedom 1.

I don't have a strong opinion on whether this licensing approach is right or wrong, I just doubt "anyone from the team" would find lrvick's post a compelling argument for switching to a free software license considering their stated goals.

Re: Grayjay Desktop App

#237

Post by ferbivore »

NotPractical wrote: post #93
daft_pink wrote: post #49

I’m excited. Are we ever going to see an iOS version?

The App Store forbids any app that violates the terms of service of any company [1], regardless of the legality [2]. Since YouTube forbids alternative clients in their terms of service, Apple will not allow Grayjay onto the App Store. Even in the EU, where multiple app stores are available, you still need to follow a subset of the App Store guidelines. I looked through them and it appears that the ToS violation guide…

There is some precedent for Apple allowing apps that can be used for ToS or even copyright infringement, as long as they have a plausible legal purpose and all the infringement happens through third-party plugins that are not advertised in the app. The example I'm most familiar with is Paperback. There's also precedent for Apple not caring about Google's terms in particular, e.g. with Musi, though I guess that did get taken down in the end.

Grayjay also uses a plugin model, possibly for this exact reason. On the other hand, the infringing plugins are first-party and advertised via their website, so I somewhat doubt that either Google or Apple would allow it on their stores.

Re: Grayjay Desktop App

#238

Post by pixxel »

em-bee wrote: post #104
NotPractical wrote: post #77

The best feature of alternative YT clients IMO is "multiple subscription lists". I have so many subscriptions, when using the official YouTube app or site the "subscriptions" feed is overwhelming, and I prefer not to use the algorithmically-generated "home" feed. Since YT has kind of become the de facto "place to upload videos on the Internet", video topics are broad enough to constitute multiple web sites, and I lik…

freetube has multiple subscription lists. they call it profiles. any channel can be in multiple profiles of your choice.

Shh.

Re: Grayjay Desktop App

#240

Post by bitexploder »

lrvick wrote: post #205

I love the right to repair work Louis Rossmann does, and this project goal as a whole, but this license is a major step backwards for software distribution with high assurances of security, freedom and privacy. Debian, Arch, Guix, F-droid or any other independent signed reproducible build channels require a true Open Source license to function legally. The license thus forces users to download unsigned non-reproducib…

Can’t you say this about virtually every single closed source binary only release software? Steam, 1Password, etc? Why is Grayjay special here. Just curious.
Post reply on HN