Quick shout-out to Grayjay: An app to watch videos on any platform - reducing the power of individual services. The Software is open-source and can be found here: https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay

I will test this out for myself and hope someone here finds this useful.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    2 years ago

    It’s viewable source, the license does not allow modification and distribution of the modifications. The license also reserves the right to be revoked at any time.

    It’s source available, but it is not what most people would consider open source in the common usage.

    • pontata@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 years ago

      He says in the video on yt that you can fork it and modify it however you want for personal use no problem. You just can’t make money distributing it I think.

      • Coasting0942@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        So basically no chance of it coming to iOS. Given that even open source apps have options to purchase donations in the iOS app, cause developers can’t eat gratitude

        • pontata@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 years ago

          He also says somewhere in the comments that apple simply wouldn’t allow this app on the app store. But there’s also the option of sideloading, I think that’s free no?

        • silicon_reverie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Sounds like a pretty good excuse to me. The code is viewable, which speaks to the privacy and accountability crowd. He allows personal modification, which appeases the tinkerers. The only group it doesn’t benefit are the ones trying to make money off of his work by degrading the user experience with ads. Are there better licenses he could have picked to accomplish his goal? Yes. Am I going to go on a Lemmy rant over a solo dev’s choice of license when he’s already done so much right? Hell no. It’s a win. Take the W and uninstall later if he changes his tune, just like with any other app whether open or closed.

          I do agree that true open source is better for everyone as it allows the community to truly own, improve, and evolve the app into the best version of itself. But this is the Privacy group, not the FOSS one. As far as my money is concerned, it ticks the boxes and earned my install. We’ll see where it goes from here.

    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Exactly. Beware of the inevitable enshittification down the line. Once they have the market share, they have no reason not to close their source

      • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I trust Louis Rossman not to do that. He explained the only reason for the current license is to prevent people forking the app and putting it on the Play store with ads

    • ToxicWaste@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      2 years ago

      I see where you are coming from. Still i would argue that it is open source, since it is open for everyone to see.

      The explanation for this more restrictive license was that they want to prevent what happened to newpipe. Some ppl repackaged newpipe with additional crap, put ads on it etc. They want to have the legal geounds to combat these things.

      While I don’t think, they would go against me for forking it and tweaking things here and there - they have the legal ground to do so…

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Their license allows you to modify it, just not to distribute your modifications. For now.

        By the strictest technical definition of the term open source I agree with you.

        But in the cultural zeitgeist it is not open source and that it can’t be used by other projects, people can’t tinker with it and improve it downstream, if this company goes out of business the source code dies with it. At least legally.

        The Microsoft Windows source code is available, if you sign an NDA, and it’s been leaked a couple times online. So if you really want to, Microsoft Windows is source available with some hurdles. But I wouldn’t consider it open source - mostly because it cannot contribute to the ecosystem evolving.