It's not open source. It's source available.
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
53843 readers
542 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
💰 Please help cover server costs.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's not open source.....but the source is open.
Not the same
Yeah but their sentence is correct:
The project is not open source (in terms of FOSS) but the source is open.
The whole license stuff is complicated enough, why are we using confusing technical terms?
Open source should be open source and free and modifyable source should be sth else
The source is literally not "open". It doesn't make sense to say that without referring to open source.
Saying the source is available to see, that makes sense though.
There have always been multiple definitions of "open source". That's why it's always best to specify. If you mean FOSS, say FOSS. Don't use an ambiguous term like "open source".
Open source is not an ambiguous term. FOSS stands for "free and open source software".
It extends the word you claim is ambiguous with the word "free". That word actually is ambiguous as in other cases it could mean "gratis" and not "it grants it's users freedom".
How is that better than the more established term with the very clear definition by the OSI? It's okay if you mixed these terms up. I just don't understand what you're trying to do here.
Then everyone should stop using "open source" or there's going to be arguments over what counts as open source every single time.
Well luckily there's no arguments necessary, as we have the definition by the OSI. I actually rarely see any discussion about that, and when I do it's mostly ill-informed comment sections.
Oh I agree completely. Open means it's open to access, modification, and redistribution. Not closed to two of those three.
Its open source, not free software.
Is there SponserBlock support?
If it supported both SponserBlock and DeArrow I'd switch in a heartbeat. Until then I'll stick to ReVanced.
So, I really want to be optimistic about this project. I love that it integrates multiple sources, that it lets you use different identities that are not attached to any of these services. I installed it and already paid for it even, because I love initiatives like this.
I think it's unsustainable. In 5 years, everyone who'd use the app's already paid for it, which means the devs have no incentive to continue to work, and funding dries up. When that happens, they'll of course just let the app run until the plugins stop working. Nobody will be able to pick it up and continue development in an open forum because it's not FLOSS.
My hope is they re-license it under a copyleft license later, but I'm not optimistic about that happening. With how things are now, it does appear to be doomed to enshittification.
ReVanced taps into my history with microg. When I watch stuff on desktop with Firefox and uBlock Origin, I want those videos to show as watched on my phone when I open ReVanced so I don't get recommended the same stuff. That works.
GrayJay can't do this. It's not better. It's a good idea, but it's a side grade.
Grayjay can do this - there is a toggle in the settings for the YouTube addin to sync watch data with your Google account.
It's a one-time sync though. If I want history from what I watched on my desktop today I have to resync.
That's the exact opposite of what most people want from an app like this.
It's what I want from an app like this 🤷♂️
It is an interesting project, not sure where it goes. The title is deeply misleading though. The features of ReVanced make YouTube so much better, whereas this project doesn't seem to be about making YouTube better so much as circumnavigating YouTube for the comment boxes and as your hub to creators. They seem to be doing different things.
What do they do differently?
It's not enough to make work around for YouTube. We need a new YouTube.
It needs YouTube to fall first, no one has that kind of money to operate at such a loss for such a long time.
Platforms with a serious offering have no chance until that.
I just bought the FUTO voice input app as well from them and it's genuinely amazing. It has punctuation where it needs to. It cuts out all the UM's. And the best part is, I don't have to pretend that I'm talking to a robot. I can just speak as if I'm talking to a normal person and it gets it right nearly every single time. It is so worth the $5.
This entire comment was typed with it, and I did not edit a single thing.
Thank you so much for this suggestion. It's really a great step towards the end of tedious voice messages. Works great but is a bit slow when using the multilang voice model. I don't mind.
basically Newpipe but only source available, not really free software or open source, so they are restricting your freedoms.
Just keep using Newpipe instead.
Have you used it? It's like NewPipe except that it's better in almost every way. The ONLY downside is that it's just old-fashioned open source instead of FOSS.
It's not open source
It is open source but you can't publish modified code (this is to ensure there will be no malicious forks like there was with newpipe)
plus you missed the entire point:
... app for watching online video content - not just youtube, but nebula, peertube, twitch and more.
It's an app that allows you to watch the same creators across many platforms
The term "open source" generally refers to the definition by the Open Source Initiative.
Not allowing publishing of modified source code is in violation with the criteria of open source.
FLOSS or die
Sadly it's for the large part the recommendation algorithm that I'm on YouTube for. Most of the videos I watch are from people I'm not subscribed to.
I've always wondered if people like you existed! Fascinating.
Not criticizing you, just personally I don't want any recommendation algos in any of my media.
Yeah people have mixed opinions about that, but atleast in my case YouTube's recommendations does a really good job at finding content I'm interested in. It just needs some training for it to do a good job. When there's something I'm not interested in, I just flag it as "not interested" and then that stuff dissapears and is replaced with something else.