Y’all are ignoring what this actually is - an app for EVERY video platform. Also, restrictive license is fine as long as the source code is available. Rossman explains this is to keep people from just forking and making scam versions of the app like NewPipe sees.
A lot of the people complaining about the license don’t get this. Also doubly surprised at those saying they won’t use it because the license doesn’t allow them to redistribute the app with malware, or charge money for it 🤦♂️
I’m also completely baffled at the amount of people here who have never heard of Louis Rossmann… literally the dude behind Right to Repair
Something about Louis just strikes me as extremely untrustworthy. I’m not sure what it is, but it’s definitely there.
He might come off as edgy but honestly he’s one of the few people I trust online. Dude did amaizing stuff with right to repair stuff too.
everything I’ve ever seen about the guy is legit. he works for consumer rights, if you want untrustworthy look at Apple.
Yeah I’d rather not give all my details for multiple sites to one site…regardless of who’s doing it.
I wonder what’s the business model?
Its effectively unlimited trialware, like WinRar. Its provided free and has no payment verification, but if you use it regularly, you’re expected to pay the approximately $10 price tag.
Unfortunately not Open Source: https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master/LICENSE
I’ll keep using NewPipe. Their software seems neat, I’ll happly pay for it, but no way I’ll do if there is licence like that.
Edit: They say the licence is only temporary. Let’s keep an eye which one they’ll choose later.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
He accidentally sent people to a Newpipe clone once and that’s why they should have the right to kill your license at any point in time for any reason or no reason at all.
That’s only half the reason, let’s not forget opposition lobbyists abusing unidentified loopholes in his initial R2R drafts, which are very costly to rectify later both time wise and monetary wise, even if at all possible. The mindset of companies screwing with you is probably not something that is easy to shake off, especially encountering it each day fighting serialisation and other rubbish just to repair someones macbook.
While not ideal, I respect his decision taken with the license chosen, even if it’s against the spirit of what most people consider to be open source.
The organisation behind the app, FUTO, wants to take control back from companies and put into the hands of people, and while we can make the argument that FUTO are being hypocritical by keeping the keys to the castle per se, they have delivered an app that puts control back in our hands - removing the need to have a separate youtube, patreon, nebula and soundcloud app, alongside others, where you can follow individual creators easier on the platforms where you financially support them.
It won’t appeal to people who just want to watch YouTube without ads (go NewPipe, Revanced etc…) or staunch FOSS supporters, both of which are seeking other ideals from their media consumption apps of choice.
The kind of people who will be using this app the most right now IMO will be Nebula and Patreon users, this app is like a dream come true compared to the official ones
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Google famously bans all use of AGPL tools internally.
Wow, TIL. That is pretty heavy handed…
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Technically open source in what definition? Not by Open Source Initiative definition (https://opensource.org/osd/), not in Wikipedia’s definition (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source)…
Public code on GitLab does not mean open source in the same way public video on YouTube does not mean Creative Commons.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Louis explains the license in the video. You can fork it and modify it, but if you fill it up with ads, spyware, malware etc., they fill fuck you.
That’s their goal. They have good intentions. But it also means no commercial use.
You can’t do “Hey, can you add this feature to this app, I’ll pay you” or “Here is much improved version you can buy from me” or “We give you paid support and help for this software for your company”. Eventually all improvements bounce back to original creators anyway, see: vital paid Wordpress theme ecosystem, most of them being GPL licenced.
With project getting bigger such restriction can be almost as bad as with propietary app. Like, imagine Linux kernel but only with Linus Torvalds having right to sell computers with it or offer any services making money.
You can not modify the source code.
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 in accordance with the terms of this license.
“review” means to access, analyse, test and otherwise review the code as a reference, for the sole purpose of analysing it for defects.
doesn’t it allow compilation and non-commercial distribution? I don’t agree with the license (not free or open source), but I’m genuinely curious on what specifically doesn’t allow source code modification.
It does allow compilation and non-commercial distribution, as per the terms my comment above. If you’re curious as to what disallows source code modifications, that is also contained in the terms included in my comment above.
Not Foss so not an option
