- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Quick shout-out to Grayjay: An app to watch videos on any platform - reducing the power of individual services. The Software is open-source and can be found here: https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay
I will test this out for myself and hope someone here finds this useful.
You must log in or register to comment.
Sadly no iOS or Desktop app :/
A desktop app would be nice, but I wouldn’t count on an IOS app, because I’m pretty sure this violates app store policies.
But it is an alpha so there’s still the chance they could make a desktop app later.
We have ipa diles on ios :) And we can sideload apps
I think this looks awesome. Curious if it will be added to F-Droid?
It’s not open source. It’s only source available.
Can you import from a newpipe backup?
Since they encourage ppl to write plugins, hopefully someone will write an import feature.
No, only from an existing YouTube account
where did you find that gitlab link? it isn’t linked from the project website; looking at the website i would assume it isn’t free software.
edit: oh, i see it isn’t actually free software after all, it is under source ‘source visible’ proprietary license. 🥱
It isn’t free however they are very clear that they make no effort to make you pay for it. IE the app works whether you pay or not and they aren’t planning to change that. It’s not free in the same way WinRAR isn’t free. Here’s the announcement video from Louis Rossman where he talks about that. https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=KuNumtHUrtW_kHSC
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/5DePDzfyWkw?si=KuNumtHUrtW_kHSC
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
yes, as i said, it is not free software.
it is also not open source software.
hey @[email protected] can you please edit your post to remove the inaccurate statement “The Software is open-source”? you could say it is “source-visible software” or some other 🤡 term, but “open source” has a definition and this software’s license aint it.
I have found three comments from you, where you insert yourself as an expert on what Open Source is/not is. Although you do link to some sources, you do so without arguing your point. IMO this is not a constructive way of communication. Since I believe your perspective is purist but overall not too helpful, I will go through the trouble an actually argue the point:
Your problem is following sentence published by the OSI: “The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources.” Which FUTO does - they won’t allow you to put ads on top of their software and distribute it. But I hope that you would agree with me that GNU GPL is an Open Source License. However, they do have a copyleft which practically makes selling software impossible. If you use a library which uses the GPL, you have to make your sources available - which makes selling a compiled version a difficult task…
If we look at Wikipedia, we see following sentence: “Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design.”, Grayjay fulfils this. Wikipedia continues: “{…}. Depending on the license terms, others may then download, modify, and publish their version {…}”, you are allowed to download and modify Grayjay. They do not allow you to commercially distribute your modifications, which is a license term.
Lets look at a big OSS company. Red Hat writes: “An open source development model is the process used by an open source community project to develop open source software. The software is then released under an open source license, so anyone can view or modify the source code.” These criteria are fulfilled by the FUTO TEMPORARY LICENSE (Last updated 7 June 2023). Red Hat does not mention the right to redistribute anywhere I could find it.
To those who actually read up to this point: I hope you find this helpful to form your own opinion based on your own research.
where you insert yourself as an expert on what Open Source is/not is
this is not really a controversial topic; assuming you were just confused, I linked to the definition and (in another comment you replied to) to the list of governments and other entities which all agree about it. i again encourage you to read those links as it sounds like you haven’t.
since you’ve declined to remove the inaccurate statement “The Software is open-source” from your post here in [email protected] I am removing the post. (since I am an admin rather than a mod of the community, the moderation action will only federate to instances running the latest version of lemmy, which your instance isn’t, but fyi it should be removed from lemmy.ml and any other instances running updated software.)
fwiw i think this is the first time i’ve used my admin privileges to remove something in a discussion i participated in myself, which tbh feels a little weird, but since this is a clear case of someone declining to remove a post making an objectively false claim, i’m going to.
A shame it is not available for iOS (at least I can see).
I don’t see the option either. Need more options like this and Piped (Piped has Yattee on iOS).
removed by mod
There are definitely foss apps on iOS and you can sideload without jailbreaking to access more foss apps. Any amount of foss is good regardless of what OS is used.
FOSS elitism < FOSS unity
Apple actively sabotages these kinds of projects. You’re on the wrong device.
Your mistake chosing an iPhone.
If there was a Linux approach to smartphones, I’d be interested. Instead, it’s a choice between two large corporations. And one of them receives the majority of its income from advertising. So that’s why I chose what I perceived to be the lesser of the two evils.
There are Linux phones, like the Pinephone and postmarketOS, but they’re not as polished as Andrpoid and iOS
GrapheneOS?
The lesser of two evils is Android as it’s like they put closed-source software on top of open source software (see AOSP) whereas on iPhone it’s all closed.
Louis says somewhere in a comment on the presentation video that they won’t have (at least for the time being) an iOS app because Apple wouldn’t allow it in the Store, so there’s that.
Hopefully once the alternative App Stores come about (thanks to EU legislation), it might appear in the future.
Or web app approach (like Voyager does with Lemmy).
alternative app stores are only supposed to be in eu
apple is looking forward to region lock this side loading facility
I wonder, are there any decent open source apps available for IOS? Asking for a friend, an Android envious friend, (actually my wife)
Is a nice XMPP client for iOS. But yeah Apple is pretty hostile to open-source developers.
Yattee, it’s an invidious/piped frontend, so you’ll need to find an instance for one, but it’s on the app store or can be sideloaded.
There’s that and uYou+/uYou+ extra which needs to be sideloaded via AltStore or other methods, but doesn’t need a piped or invidious instance and accesses YouTube directly
no. FOSS and Apple don’t mix, especially on their iShits.
apple sucks for many reasons but this is just blatant fanboy mudslinging lol. i use plenty of foss on my apple devices, mainly mac
Apple and FOSS is dedinitely an antithesis but it’s kinda rude to disapprove Apple that heavily, even though I’m a hater too.
It’s viewable source, the license does not allow modification and distribution of the modifications. The license also reserves the right to be revoked at any time.
It’s source available, but it is not what most people would consider open source in the common usage.
He says in the video on yt that you can fork it and modify it however you want for personal use no problem. You just can’t make money distributing it I think.
deleted by creator
Sounds like a pretty good excuse to me. The code is viewable, which speaks to the privacy and accountability crowd. He allows personal modification, which appeases the tinkerers. The only group it doesn’t benefit are the ones trying to make money off of his work by degrading the user experience with ads. Are there better licenses he could have picked to accomplish his goal? Yes. Am I going to go on a Lemmy rant over a dev’s choice of license when he’s already done so much right? Hell no. It’s a win. Take the W and uninstall later if he changes his tune, just like with any other app whether open or closed.
I do agree that true open source is better for everyone as it allows the community to truly own, improve, and evolve the app into the best version of itself. But this is the Privacy group, not the FOSS one. As far as my money is concerned, it ticks the boxes and earned my install. We’ll see where it goes from here.
So basically no chance of it coming to iOS. Given that even open source apps have options to purchase donations in the iOS app, cause developers can’t eat gratitude
He also says somewhere in the comments that apple simply wouldn’t allow this app on the app store. But there’s also the option of sideloading, I think that’s free no?
Sideloading on iOS is free but a total PITA. There is little incentive to build an app for such a small userbase
Hrmmmm. I’m not certain I’m liking YOUR gratitude, sir or ma’am.
Exactly. Beware of the inevitable enshittification down the line. Once they have the market share, they have no reason not to close their source
Futo (the organisation developing this app) appears to be a tech billionaire (Eron Wolf) firing his money at the tech industry until it stops being so shit.
This is from the about page on their website:
Our Three Pledges
We will never sell out. All FUTO companies and FUTO-funded projects are expected to remain fiercely independent. They will never exacerbate the monopoly problem by selling out to a monopolist.
We will never abuse our customers. All FUTO companies and FUTO-funded projects are expected to maintain an honest relationship with their customers. Revenue, if it exists, comes from customers paying directly for software and services. “The users are our product” revenue models are strictly prohibited.
We will always be transparently devoted to making delightful software. All FUTO-funded projects are expected to be open-source or develop a plan to eventually become so. No effort will ever be taken to hide from the people what their computers are doing, to limit how they use them, or to modify their behavior through their software.
(From: https://futo.org/what-is-futo/)
What they say and what they will do could of course differ but they do go to great pains to paint themselves as fundamentally opposed to be sort of action you are worried about.
Words are cheap. Google used to write “don’t be evil”. If they are a billionaire, they could easily afford to make this FOSS.
I trust Louis Rossman not to do that. He explained the only reason for the current license is to prevent people forking the app and putting it on the Play store with ads
I trust no one. Just put the code in a permissive license so when you eventually cease developing the app or when you turn into adding anti-features there are community forks.
He explained his reasoning in the video. He said a malicious copy of newpipe got forked and uploaded to the play store and he would like to prevent that from happening.
that’s no excuse at all. This way they are restricting everyone’s freedom.
Free software, or if you prefer, open source, is based on the principle that everyone can use the code for any purpose (some licenses have copyleft but that just requires you to share your modifications to the code).
A malicious actor will simply grab this app code anyway, don’t giving a crap about the license and put ads on top. If they are a malicious actor after all, I highly doubt the license will stop them.
What the license is stopping are legitimate community forks. There’s a fork of Newpipe that adds Sponsorblock support, for example, which comes super handy. If community forks weren’t allowed, it wouldn’t be possible at all.
Having a license allows them to go after the malicious actor with legal backing.
Lol, as if that’s not going to happen anyway. They’ll just take Newpipe and stuck a different name and logo onto it.
They should allow that. With gpl, the name is protected and that’s all that matters.
I see where you are coming from. Still i would argue that it is open source, since it is open for everyone to see.
The explanation for this more restrictive license was that they want to prevent what happened to newpipe. Some ppl repackaged newpipe with additional crap, put ads on it etc. They want to have the legal geounds to combat these things.
While I don’t think, they would go against me for forking it and tweaking things here and there - they have the legal ground to do so…
Still i would argue that it is open source, since it is open for everyone to see.
You are mistaken. Please read The Open Source Definition and the Open-source software wikipedia article, and then kindly edit your post to remove the inaccurate statement “The Software is open-source”.
I have found three comments from you, where you insert yourself as an expert on what Open Source is/not is. Although you do link to some sources, you do so without arguing your point. IMO this is not a constructive way of communication. Since I believe your perspective is purist but overall not too helpful, I will go through the trouble an actually argue the point:
Your problem is following sentence published by the OSI: “The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources.” Which FUTO does - they won’t allow you to put ads on top of their software and distribute it. But I hope that you would agree with me that GNU GPL is an Open Source License. However, they do have a copyleft which practically makes selling software impossible. If you use a library which uses the GPL, you have to make your sources available - which makes selling a compiled version a difficult task…
If we look at Wikipedia, we see following sentence: “Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design.”, Grayjay fulfils this. Wikipedia continues: “{…}. Depending on the license terms, others may then download, modify, and publish their version {…}”, you are allowed to download and modify Grayjay. They do not allow you to commercially distribute your modifications, which is a license term.
Lets look at a big OSS company. Red Hat writes: “An open source development model is the process used by an open source community project to develop open source software. The software is then released under an open source license, so anyone can view or modify the source code.” These criteria are fulfilled by the FUTO TEMPORARY LICENSE (Last updated 7 June 2023). Red Hat does not mention the right to redistribute anywhere I could find it.
To those who actually read up to this point: I hope you find this helpful to form your own opinion based on your own research.
Their license allows you to modify it, just not to distribute your modifications. For now.
By the strictest technical definition of the term open source I agree with you.
But in the cultural zeitgeist it is not open source and that it can’t be used by other projects, people can’t tinker with it and improve it downstream, if this company goes out of business the source code dies with it. At least legally.
The Microsoft Windows source code is available, if you sign an NDA, and it’s been leaked a couple times online. So if you really want to, Microsoft Windows is source available with some hurdles. But I wouldn’t consider it open source - mostly because it cannot contribute to the ecosystem evolving.
if this company goes out of business the source code dies with it.
Despite the fact that probably none of us had heard of them until today, it appears that FUTO has tremendously deep pockets so are very unlikely to go out of business any time soon (which Rossman mentioned in the comments of his video with a link to this one (that I haven’t yet watched) of his interview with the owner a year ago https://www.youtube.com/live/OJPmbcU-Vzo?si=DovtYTWTC3S1QIY-)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/live/OJPmbcU-Vzo?si=DovtYTWTC3S1QIY-
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
He says in the video it is this way so they can legally pursue forks with malware and advertisements.
Youtube fails to fight its clones and you think they will succeed? It’s only disuasive
I find it strange that they immediately called it a “better ReVanced”, when apart from the feed thing it doesn’t have nearly as many features as ReVanced.
Has anyone come up with an actual reason to switch? Because I have a feeling ReVanced is still better?
Important to note that this is a custom temporary license. Doesn’t mean it’s not good, but still something to keep in mind.
https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master/LICENSE
https://ghostarchive.org/archive/dD09d (click “Archived page not showing up? Click here.” on the left side)
edit: removed archive.org link because it wasn’t loading properly
edit 2: corrected some mistakes about the source
They said they’ve been working on it for at least a year so not having a proper license can only mean the license will get more restrictive.
Just asking: what rights are missing for this to be FOSS?
The main right missing is for others to use the code for any commercial reasons, while checking I re-read the license again and realized I made some mistakes, so I fixed those in my comment.
I guess it is open source depending on definitions of it, and I was just being nitpicky, but not FOSS since it does restrict the purposes that the code can be used for, giving futo more rights than forks would have as well as the control to cut others off from the code at any time
We may suspend, terminate or vary the terms of this license and any access to the code at any time, without notice, for any reason or no reason, in respect of any licensee, group of licensees or all licensees including as may be applicable any sub-licensees.
They can vary the terms of the license for future commits.
The license seems similar in terms of effect to the MIT license while still giving them control over trademarks and images.
I’d call this a more restrictive form of MIT but not as copyleft as GPL.
Louis Rossman said in his video that this was so people didn’t repackage the application with ads and malware. He said it’s fair game to recompile and altar it in any other capacity though.
I’ve never heard of him before Grayjay suddenly started trending on here, so I’ll only trust them after this has existed for a little while due to them being able to change the license terms so freely (not that they will or not)
Without a fully open license I just don’t trust someone who comes in suddenly doing it differently than everyone else. Assuming they end up being trustworthy this will be a great thing though.
Louis Rossman is the poster child for the right to repair movement. He’s been doing this for well over a decade at this point. It’s okay that you don’t know him, but just trust us when we say that he’s pretty trustworthy. Maybe I don’t know, do some research into him.
I’ll still wait to see, repairing devices and advocating for the right to repair is not the same thing as developing a video app and open source licensing
I wouldn’t assume by default that a person who knows how to build and repair a rocket also knows how to reach the moon in one.
I don’t expect others to be skeptical just because I think it is, but I just prefer to wait and see on these things regardless of who’s in charge of it, I’ve been burned by things that were supposed to be trustworthy before.
Afterall a healthy mentality. Even if I think Rossmann does some great things - he is still a rando on the internet.
Me as a dev understands the desire to protect your work against malicious actors. On the other hand some of the best work is GPL licensed. IMO their license provides an ok middle ground between protection and non-commercial redistribution.
Let actions speak louder than words.
Ah, so that’s why everyone was so hyped when he developed a €169 software to calibrate the MacBook orientation sensor
Louis Rossmann is based AF
deleted by creator
I’m skeptical of the app, but it’s not a YouTube knockoff, you have to make sure the YouTube source is enabled
You clearly have no idea what it is
The app looks cool, but why did you post this in c/privacy? Does this have some extra privacy related features?
It excludes trackers from apps like YT, Twitch etc, so there is an argument to be made
Exactly this. Bonus points: this time privacy is more convenient than the native apps.
I literally just watched the video from Louis Rossman, and came straight here. Pleased to see everyone already talking about it!
I watched a bunch of that too but what was a little concerning to me was holding up Destiny as an example of a good use case for the service. There’s a reason Destiny keeps getting banned from every platform he touches. Putting him up front and center makes me wonder if they have a plan to deal with problematic people (like Destiny). Are they just going to the up hosting white supremacists and Neonazis? That’s not really a (meta)platform i want to support.
No lords. No masters. No GPL – no interest.
What’s wrong with the FUTO license?
AFAICT, the only restrictions are you cannot make money off it, and you can’t pretend to be the official app. Very similar to the Mozilla license, although Mozilla’s has some extra bits to be compliant with releasing on the App Store, which has its own licensing requirements that is not met by any version of the GPL
removed by mod
Ohh I see, sounds like more of a principled reason then if i’m understanding you correctly
Edit: while Louis is accepting feedback on the license specifically, I doubt the project will move to something relicensable, since Louis specifically picked this license to prevent what is happening to NewPipe and the spread of malware using his name to gain trust. He’s also been burned a lot during the R2R stuff with unforseen loopholes abused by rival lobbyists, so the FUTO license is probably looking at things from a protectionist perspective, not as an individual from the FOSS community.
I’ve only heard of one OSS project relicensing in recent times, and they had to reach out to each individual contributor for written permission, hopefully this rings a bell for someone here because I can’t remember the project name…
That’s not only principle, it’s very practical especially with a service like this.
Downloaded it and tried it. It’s awesome. It blows invidious and newpipe out of the water. Plus it includes my nebula subscriptions in with my YouTube subscriptions.
Do you know if it sends back watch data to the platforms? I pay for Nebula to support the folks I watch, so wouldn’t want to lose out on that.
Nebula is beta, hopefully it gets support for sending back watch stats and saving watch progress 🙏
I see they have something similar for YouTube already, where you can enable/disable anonymity (using your google account for requests VS anonymous requests), and enable/disable saving watch history to your linked Google account
I know there is an option for that on the YouTube settings, not sure about nebula though.
If only it didn’t require you to have a new phone to run it. (Minimum Android 10)
