Open source app to watch videos from any platform
gitlab.futo.org
gitlab.futo.org
* [Circles](https://circu.li/): A private photo sharing feed for families.
* [FUTO Voice](https://github.com/abb128/LiveCaptions): A voice input app for Android that respects your privacy.
* [Polycentric](https://docs.polycentric.io/): A distributed text-based social network centered around communities.
* [Live Captions](https://github.com/abb128/LiveCaptions): Accessible live captions that are completely private. It seems that Live Captions are the same with FUTO Voice.
It should point to https://voiceinput.futo.org/
Problems he brought with NewPipe can all be solved by copyrighting the logo and registering trademark for software name itself. No need for BS source available licensing.
Ironically one of the great things about open source licenses is that when a guy can't keep his website online we can fork it and someone more competent can become the maintainer of the project. Of course Louis Rossman wouldn't profit from that.
So from what I am seeing so far I am thinking fuck this guy. The GPL, similar licenses, and user freedom are all way more important than him, whoever he is. Huge negative marks to this guy for attacking free software. We have seen a long string of these exploitative software vendors come and go. He seems to be establishing that he's just another one of the vendors who wants to exploit his users.
I'm sorry, but I really don't see this in any possible way. Can you help me understand? What did he say that you consider "trash talking open source software"?
The reason I like him is that he's been fighting Apple anti-repair policies for years.
The problem here is that he's attacking the general case of free software licenses - OK I get it that some people downloaded a malicious fork of Newpipe and that sucks. But that's not a reason to abandon free/open/copyleft licensing of software, which is essentially the case he's making. At the end of the day this is a guy who has a large audience and has decided to attack open source licensing. I get that he may be a good guy and do other things that are good but that is a serious problem.
Us C&D'ed maintainers have the context to help this kind of app potentially win legal battles but in exchange we want to get back to work without fear!
If you care about OSS maintainers being protected from billion dollar bullying anticompetitive megacorps then please reach out.
No reason to help them with legal defence.
Or to donate to them.
I’ve thought of starting a similar project for paid tv/movie streaming services, but got discouraged since a lawsuit can erase thousands of hours poured into the project.
The internet has seen this play out many many (many) times before.
Any chance of making it publicly viewable?
It's also really telling this app doesn't support any self-hosting solutions.
I'm a firm believer in the benefits of the rights granted by F/LOSS, but think that we should normalize paying for both binaries and source code. Monetizing OSS is hard enough, and developers should have more ways of getting paid to write OSS, not less.
Giving the software and source code away _gratis_ can be unsustainable, and introduce perverse incentives that ultimately harm the user.
That official definition is problematic because it uses libre/gratis interchangeably, and in some cases actually requires the software to be given away gratis ("for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge").
I'm not able to see the license of Grayjay, but assuming it allows libre distribution and modification, it would still grant the user the most important freedoms of the strict OSS definition.
I find it counterproductive that the official definition even mentions software cost, which has nothing to do with the actual freedoms that benefit the user, and in turn harms the development of OSS.
The definition mentions cost of obtaining the source code for a good reason. A freedom that you are incapable of ever exercising is not actually a freedom.
If I give you the binary for open source software A for gratis or maybe sell it to for X$, you are now entitled to also receive the source code. If that clause would not be there what would stop me from charging you 1 billion $ for obtaining the source code.
The full statement of the definition is: "Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program."
It does not use libre and gratis interchangeably, it is very clear what the cost is referring to.
Eh, fair, I suppose. The mistake in this case was using the wrong term.
Semantics aside, I think fostering a sustainable ecosystem of software that respects users' rights is more important than forcing developers to give away their work for free.
> A freedom that you are incapable of ever exercising is not actually a freedom.
Charging for source code does not infringe any freedoms. Does owning a computer and using an internet connection also infringe on these freedoms because it has an associated cost? Why should paying for software be different?
> If that clause would not be there what would stop me from charging you 1 billion $ for obtaining the source code.
That's a silly argument. Nothing stops you, except that you might not have many users that would be willing to pay that amount. There's a world of possibilities between charging $0 and $1bn that would be acceptable for both developers and users.
Alternatively, you can use an OSI-compliant license to attract users and build your company, and then one day decide to switch to a non-OSI license, essentially extorting your users once they're already hooked.
Or, you can use an OSI-compliant license to attract users and build your company, but hide important features behind a paywall, or just neglect the OSS maintenance in favor of your commercial product.
Or, you can use an OSI-compliant license forever, and just work for free. Yeah, that sounds sustainable.
The problem with that definition is it allows commercial distribution of said software, which futo's license prohibits on purpose since you could bundle the futo software with ads and call it your own software. The futo license prohibits commercial distribution of its software by others
> The issue with the non-standard license for the application stems from problems that arose with NewPipe, an open-source media player. When a video recommended downloading NewPipe, many people mistakenly downloaded a malware-ridden version from the Play Store. This fake version was loaded with ads and sometimes even required payment. The crux of the problem is that people were forking NewPipe, adding ads and trackers, and then asking for money on the Play Store. To prevent this kind of exploitation and deceit, the developers of the application in question opted for a less permissive license. This allows them to retain the right to take action against anyone who forks their application and tries to monetize it through deceptive means. They are committed to an ad-free, non-tracking application and don't want to engage in a business model where the user becomes the product.
Source: https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=ivUrdDTwrhqUdt37&t=613
If the creators are still aligned with the open source ethos maybe it would help outlining what they consider a fair use fork.
EDIT: typos
As the parent hints that there are documented ways to do this sort if thing with open source licenses I would like to hear from them how this is done, just because you or I don't know it doesn't mean that somebody else hasn't found a bulletproof, court trsted way to do this.