Show HN: Video Hub App – like YouTube for videos on your computer
videohubapp.com
videohubapp.com
All proceeds go to Against Malaria Foundation (GiveWell's top-rated charity).
Currently not open source, but am trying to figure out how to set a license that encourages people to tinker with the code, but not to clone a copy and sell it.
Seems like either GPL or the creative commons by-nc-sa (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) to me.
Probably the latter because the GPL allows commercializing as a website.
(Disclaimer: IANAL)
Creative Commons discourages using its' licenses for code: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...
> Probably the latter because the GPL allows commercializing as a website.
If you want your copyleft to apply to over-the-network users, you want AGPL: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
The first is that it doesn't really stop commercialization, it's perfectly possible to make a commercial service using open source components.
The second is that I'm of the opinion that it may fail once tested in court, basically for the reasoning laid out here [0] (not sure if the author of that is a lawyer, I've seen lawyer's express that position before though).
That's patently not true. One does not have "posession" by merely having access to the binary or source. One must first agree (implicitly, or explicitly) before they can acquire the software, such as agreeing to the licence when downloading.
Therefore, as soon as you have the right to use the software, the licence applies (as the licence is what grants you the "possession").
As for the law mentioned (17 USC 117,17 U.S. Code § 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs), that only applies in a very narrow set of circumstances, such as copying for any technical requirements for operation, or backup purposes. The AGPL additional provisions don't overlap with this provision of the copyright law. The author seems to have misinterpreted the law imho.
Sorry, but you're the mistaken one here. You need a license to make copies of, derivative works, etc. If the copyright holder makes a copy and sends it to me I do not need any license to hold onto it or execute it. We can see this through, for example, Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software [0] (the portion about direct infringement, Wikipedia has a link to the actual ruling as well if you prefer that).
EULA's, unlike the GPL, use contract law to get around this. In order to purchase/download the software I enter into a contract with you giving up some of my rights. The FSFs position as I understand it is that the GPL and AGPL are not contracts though, just licenses, so they don't serve a similar function (assuming the courts agree with the FSF).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_Corp._v._Quaid_Software_....
(Disclaimer: IANAL)
Only for the purposes of execution can this copy be retained (as it's impossible to not make a copy while in memory).
However, I cannot keep the executable in memory, and use it for any other purpose (including letting someone else also execute it) unless authorised by the copyright holder.
In AGPL, the js/css etc are copyrighted. But the transmission isn't from the copyright holder to end user, but from an licensee to an end user. There's no relationship between the end user and the copyright holder. But the licensee is bound (by their very license) to allow the end user access any sources, despite them not having any relationship with the copyright holder. This licence doesn't contain any illegal clauses, and is voluntarily entered into by both parties, with consideration exchanged (it being the promise to make source available). Therefore, it's a legal contract.
Now, as for whether it's enforceable is hard to say, but I do believe it is sound...but IANAL of course.
The AGPL probably works for client side js/css. But that's not really a surprise since the GPL probably works for client side js/css. What I am not sure it works for is strictly server side code.
The FSF has argued that the AGPL/GPL is not a contract. Other lawyers have argued it is a contract. I take no position on that argument, which is a good part of why I simply say "may" be found unenforceable.
What I usually see happening is that they release two versions. One under GPLv3, MIT or whatever very permissive licence and a Pro version with many advanced features with a proprietary licence.
If you want to prevent forking and copying then I either suggest to keep it closed source or make sure that you maintain the best version of the app so users will have no motivation to switch to a fork and be loyal to the original creator.
Another way is giving it a 'non-commercial use only' stipulation, which might not be lawyer proof.
Any of this won't prevent people from trying to profit off of it though.
PS: Remember to have an CLA so you won't have any problems with selling it.
One feature I need (and would like to tinker with the code to add it) is support for subtitles in multiple languages at the same time. http://voicetube.com does this to help people learn English; I'm trying to learn Chinese.
Unfortunately life in Taiwan has been really hard for the last few months though, so I'm preparing to leave. Busy looking for new jobs in other countries now.
What kind of job are you looking for?
I'm most passionate about control systems/automation, network admin, and circuit design. But I've done a wide variety of other projects (big data, web apps, device drivers, tech support and repairs for friends). I'm not good at art or marketing, so front-end design isn't for me. I'll consider pretty much anything else though.
Learned english when I was a kid by watching cartoons with subtitles... Good luck.
Reach out to the EFF and see if they can give you some pro Bono consulting on how to license it for your needs. Alternatively, @buu700 and I have worked with and can recommend https://twitter.com/falconred (Jim Rennie). I get no commission for the rec—we last worked with him two years ago.
By definition, any such license wouldn't be open source. However, as others have mentioned, putting it under a copyleft license would make it unlikely that others would do so, since they wouldn't be able to distribute their version without providing source under the same license themselves.
People can certainly use a term in a way contrary to the expectations and definitions used by the vast majority of other people, and then they shouldn't act surprised if they're either misunderstood, called incorrect, or perhaps most importantly, called out as being intentionally obtuse and confusing and asked to stop that. Language is descriptive rather than prescriptive, but descriptive language can still call some usages incorrect when they're exceedingly likely to be interpreted differently than the standard meaning and lead to unclear communication.
Several decades ago, before open source was nearly as widespread and before there were any popular definitions, it was understandable when people use the term rather fuzzily; everyone had their own understanding of it. That's not the case anymore.
In any case, the original point would still stand if stated as "that set of goals is incompatible with what the vast majority of people who use the term 'open source' would consider 'open source'", but that would be excessively verbose, would only serve to confuse the point with a needless distraction that wasn't part of the original topic, and would in particular distract from the more important point of "here's a possible way to do what you're trying to do without that problem".
In my case it feels like it would take quite a bit of effort to pull out features from the software and make a stripped-down version available.
My primary reason for wanting to share the code is that perhaps it will be a useful place for others to learn some things (though I don't think my code is stellar / exemplary and I know it has some serious shortcomings).
I guess it isn't a big problem if someone releases a clone of my app for free as long as I somehow can require (request) they always link back to the original on their website and in the app itself. But I'm not eager to chase people around and pester them if they don't comply.
I'm thinking I might wait for a full year since release (until February 2019) and just put out the whole code on GitHub with a 'free to do anything' license and a personal request that people always include a link to the original in the compiled app and on/through whatever websites they share it on.
I'm looking for something inbetween. Basically VLC or MPV with a persistent library I can point to my film/tv shows folder and it will let me browse, play content, keep track of progress, etc. Is there such an app for macOS?
I never looked for macOS apps though (since I use Linux.) To be honest, there's a decent chance that you would find something for Mac. Doubt it would be cross platform though.
https://wiki.videolan.org/Media_Library/
It's very basic but it works
This medialibrary is already used in VLC for Android for music album classification in an SQLite database.
There are countless music library management apps (iTunes, Swinsian, MusicBee, Roon, Foobar, Vox) - something similar for video is needed.
- The default black-on-dark-grey in the primary pane looks amateurish. Switching out the background color for something lighter (maybe a light beige?) would make a world of difference for first impressions.
- I'd appreciate if the screenshots adapted to my platform, so I could see what the app actually looks like on Windows. But I understand that it'd consume a lot of effort to re-take everything two extra times and keep them all up to date. The Windows/Mac/Linux image at the bottom at least ought to use a platform-appropriate screenshot for each segment.
After I finished making the app, it ended up being very consuming making the promotional materials (website, screenshots, YouTube video, etc). I'm studying Machine Learning at the moment, so this project isn't the only one I'm juggling.
I'm also not thrilled about the color scheme, but I couldn't come up with anything I liked more. It's not a challenge to update the color scheme a bit, though it's hard without explicit spec from someone stellar with UI (as we have at work).
My goodness! My website is useless without JS at the moment!
The main reason, at least for me, is that on the TV, lighter themes are very bright.
1) extract screenshots from videos from a folder you give it (should work over network as far as I can tell -- it works with external hard drives for sure).
2) show a gallery view of your videos. When you click on any video, it launches your OS's default video player.
I'm unsure if/how it would work in the case you describe.
Otherwise, looks awesome! Take my money!
As for metadata - currently Video Hub App doesn't keep anything other than file size, time length, and resolution. One very-requested feature is to allow tags and that may be the first large addition to the app in the future.
But I'm unsure if I'd work on any automated import of metadata at this time.
I'm afraid without the word "app" it would sound as generic as "rename files" ... also I needed an available domain name.
Coincidentally https://videohub.app/ was also free :)
That was also the same time I realized, oh this is probably electron. Should state that somewhere as well.
The trickiest part would be the UI -- making it usable and elegant.
Perhaps those markings would visually fit nicely inside the filmstrip view.
If you try it out -- please report back and let us know how it goes! :)
Charging more is a balance between larger sales volume (importantly -- more people using the app), and possibly higher revenue (in my case donations to my favorite charity).
I'm leaning towards having a lot more people enjoy my work (though I'm still unwilling to go "pay what you want" with no minimum at this time).
No doubt you can see the stats and know what's gonna work better than some random on HN :)
One thing: I found the contrast of the video name text and the bg a bit tough when using the light theme. IF it's possible, custom bg colour or something would be great. Anyway :) thanks for a cool app
edit: ha was logged in to my old acccount when i first posted, a downside of password managers if you're not paying attention!
I'm unsure how well the app will do in the international market, but in many countries even $3 is quite a bit of money.
A nice feature about the price, is that each purchase of the app equates to a purchase of an anti-mosquito bednet (since I'm donating proceeds to a charity that provides them to communities affected by malaria) :)