this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
461 points (99.6% liked)

Firefox

134 readers
7 users here now

The latest news and developments on Firefox and Mozilla, a global non-profit that strives to promote openness, innovation and opportunity on the web.

You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:

Related

Rules

While we are not an official Mozilla community, we have adopted the Mozilla Community Participation Guidelines as far as it can be applied to a bin.

Rules

  1. Always be civil and respectful
    Don't be toxic, hostile, or a troll, especially towards Mozilla employees. This includes gratuitous use of profanity.

  2. Don't be a bigot
    No form of bigotry will be tolerated.

  3. Don't post security compromising suggestions
    If you do, include an obvious and clear warning.

  4. Don't post conspiracy theories
    Especially ones about nefarious intentions or funding. If you're concerned: Ask. Please don’t fuel conspiracy thinking here. Don’t try to spread FUD, especially against reliable privacy-enhancing software. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Show credible sources.

  5. Don't accuse others of shilling
    Send honest concerns to the moderators and/or admins, and we will investigate.

  6. Do not remove your help posts after they receive replies
    Half the point of asking questions in a public sub is so that everyone can benefit from the answers—which is impossible if you go deleting everything behind yourself once you've gotten yours.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
461
Google disrupted YouTube video playback on Firefox, again - gHacks Tech News (www.ghacks.net)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
98 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Some Firefox users noticed playback issues on YouTube for several months. These affected high resolution videos only, from 1080p and up. To make matters worse, no clear pattern could be identified.

Some videos played fine, others would stop abruptly when they ran out of buffer.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If someone posts their source code publicly, it's open source. It's unreasonable to ask them to review and maintain every PR sent their way. If they want to work on it by themselves, that's fine. If you want to fork it and make changes yourself, you can. Literally the only qualification for something to be open source is that the source is open.

It's also unreasonable to be upset if they tell you you're not allowed to take their work and re-sell it for your own profit. That would be like saying that artists are in the wrong for being upset that all those AI companies used their work to train their bots without asking. "Why would they prevent the creation of nonfree applications that use their work?!" I assume that's not your position, right?

But as you said, NewPipe is also copyleft, and it seems like you don't have a problem with that. So I don't really understand what your issue is with Grayjay/FUTO. It's reasonable to be concerned about where their funding comes from, but you haven't mentioned that. You say they have "marketing lies", but haven't pointed to any.

It's perfectly fine for there to be multiple open source solutions to the same problem, and you're allowed to have a favorite, but that doesn't warrant dragging the others' names through the mud for no reason.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If someone posts their source code publicly, it's open source.

Uh, no. That's called "source-available". Terms have meanings. And from the day the words "open source" started being used, this definition is what defined them: https://opensource.org/osd

You can't just redefine an established term because it's inconvenient to your argument.

It's unreasonable to ask them to review and maintain every PR

Good thing being free/open source doesn't require that, then? It basically just requires the users be free to make their own modifications and distribute them. No requirement for public development involvement at all, really. It's standard practice but by no means necessary.

If you want to fork it and make changes for yourself, you can

They can terminate your license for any reason or no reason (stated in the license) making your fork in violation of copyright law :).

In other words, they can take down your fork if they feel like it. Making the ability to fork useless.

literally the only qualification for something to be open source ...

Again, terms have established meanings. See above.

It's also unreasonable to be upset if they tell you you're not allowed to take their work and re-sell it for your own profit.

I don't see how this paragraph relates to my point at all. Is it about the NewPipe paid clones? Because they were illegal anyways (copyleft violation), no egregious license needed.

But as you said, NewPipe is also copyleft, and it seems like you don't have a problem with that. So I don't really understand what your issue is with Grayjay/FUTO.

What do you mean "also copyleft"? Are you implying the GrayJay license is copyleft? Because it absolutely isn't. Again, established term, definition: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html

And finally, here's some particularly nasty parts of the license, which funilly enough you don't ever see in free/open source licenses (because they're horribly restrictive terms):

"If you issue proceedings in any jurisdiction against the provider because you consider the provider has infringed copyright or any patent right in respect of the code (including any joinder or counterclaim), your license to the code is automatically terminated."

"We may suspend, terminate or vary the terms of this license and any access to the code at any time, without notice, for any reason or no reason, in respect of any licensee, group of licensees or all licensees including as may be applicable any sub-licensees."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You can’t just redefine an established term because it’s inconvenient to your argument.

Agreed, which is why you can't expect to enforce the definition you like on everyone. The only thing about "open source" that we agree on is that the "source" is "open".

I'm realizing you're working with outdated information. Take a look at the license again, it's been updated.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

you can't expect to enforce the definition you like on everyone

It is literally the definition which has been used since the term's conception when the open source movement split off from the software freedom movement. It is a well established term with a well established meaning. Just because you don't want to use that meaning doesn't mean it isn't the correct and most widely recognised. Its not that I like the definition, it's that it is the primary definition and always has been.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It is literally the definition which has been used since the term's conception when the open source movement split off from the software freedom movement

No, it's the definition the Open Source Initiative has used since their inception. They are just one of many open source communities with their own licenses.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree (which is my entire point). Cheers.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, it's the definition the Open Source Initiative has used since their inception.

Which.. split off from the FSF and the software freedom movement. And that term was never used before they created it. They literally defined it and started it's use.

They are just one of many open source communities with their own licenses.

Again, established definition. Stop trying to legitimise your self-concocted definition of "open source".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Stop being a meme of yourself lol

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I see you have nothing else to say so jumped to ad hominem instead.