For those who have the ability to do so, please make an Archive of all the Vanced Versions before the download links are taken down
The only way that makes sense for all of us as a democratic society is to keep control, and this can only be achieved through Libre Software. The real move right now is not to keep existing Vanced content on life support, but to use Newpipe. If it doesn't support the right features, fork it. Enhance it. Use it as the Common it is
I wouldn't want to be the one with my neck on the line in court over this.
Consider that .torrent files also don't have the content, yet torrent sites which serve them and provide tracking for torrent clients are having to play cat and mouse with copyright holders.
That said, so much of what we knew about copyright and software in the 90s has been overturned by subsequent rulings or even statutes (like the DMCA) that if you wish to avoid being burned by copyright suits, you must retain an attorney knowledgeable in this area of law. (Which is true in any case.) As an example, look-and-feel copyrights are back on the table thanks to The Tetris Company LLC.
These instructions do not increase the number of people who have copies of the work, and so no copying is taking place; copyright should not be applicable here. The licensor may argue that license clauses is being violated, but not copyright; i.e. the users are using the software in ways that they don't like (use is not copying or redistribution).
(Assume for this question that the Mona Lisa was currently protected by U.S. copyright.)
To the extent that it's "based on" copyrightable expression in the Mona Lisa, yes. AIUI the key question is: would a viewer recognise the Mona Lisa from your transparency? And that would be a question of fact for the jury; personally guessing I'd say probably not from just the position of a mustache in a frame, probably yes if you included e.g. an outline of the pose. (In which case it might still be protected fair use, but it would be a derivative work, and you'd have to make that positive defence).
Food is required for a healthy society but would anyone here advocate for farmers to give away all of their produce for free?
Text-tiles are necessary for society but would you advocate that clothing be provided by the creators free of charge?
The only thing different about software is that little to no physical resources are required as a prerequisite to its production, but an individuals time and energy is.
A world in which no one was paid to write software would be a world with much worse offerings than what we currently have and would be a net loss for humanity.
But, but, ... Vanced is free-as-in-beer software that prevents Google getting ad revenue for their product/service.
There are plenty of successful software companies whose offerings are not proprietary, yet manage to pay their developers well. Example products:
- MongoDB
- Red Hat
- Docker
- Elastic Search
- Vagrant
Seeing them succeed up to that point is already an incredible feat, and perhaps they will find a way to turn around with a bright future ahead, but at this point I wouldn't give them as clear examples of success of the business model.
Red Hat is IBM, so I'm not sure it fits in the list.
Their software was ripped and resold by a billion dollar corps and they could do nothing about it.
Yet, they still are able to employ people and give them a fair wage, making them good examples.
Libre Software can totally be funded, through individual donations or through public funding; in fact, because Libre Software is a common, it is only normal that time spent improving them should be time paid by the entire society. I see no problem with the idea of taking from private property to further common property.
Given that HN is a higher quality social media platform than most, maybe today that can change. Would you mind answering a few questions:
1. Who does the hard/dirty jobs in this society? Farming being one. But also construction, sewage, trash, ad inifitum. There are a lot of undesirable jobs and while maybe some people would be willing, I doubt our needs could be met when the same individuals could just work an easier job for the same reward.
2. How are "needs" defined? Food, shelter, clothing. Then what? Electricity? Internet? Smartphones? Gaming consoles/PC's? Games to play on those? Music? Memory foam mattresses? Etc. If all of these aren't needs, then how would individuals with varying interests actually choose what they want to own?
3. What are the incentives to advance amd become highly skilled? Take doctors. Some are really passionate about what they do. Most may be a little passionate, but are mainly just intelligent people drawn by the money and prestige. Assuming medical school and university still exists, for what purpose would someone go through that pipeline when they could do something far easier?
The suggestions that we as a society should basically just bully a certain number of people into undesirable positions is egregious and almost worse than blatant authoritarianism. At least today the people working those jobs are usually compensated better than they would be in another obtainable position given their skills amd ability.
I just feel like all this crying foul about authoritarianism is because people view certain roles, even the essential ones, as beneath them. If that mindset needs to be changed then I'm all for it. I don't deny that it will be hard, and I don't deny that I might be guilty of this myself.
Vanced is literally a cracked version of Google's software though, to remove all the revenue checks.
If Vanced will keep working as-is for maybe a year or two, that's at least nice, I just would like to keep a copy of the latest version for reinstalling when my tablet is formatted in the next days...