this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
307 points (92.1% liked)
Privacy
31181 readers
681 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Exactly. Beware of the inevitable enshittification down the line. Once they have the market share, they have no reason not to close their source
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
I trust no one. Just put the code in a permissive license so when you eventually cease developing the app or when you turn into adding anti-features there are community forks.
To my understanding, you can fork, modify and distribute it as long as it is "not intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation."
Seems fair to me.
not as I understand it. Here's an excellent comment with a breakdown: https://lemmy.haigner.me/comment/166934
basically they have the rights to revoke the license for any reasons at any time. that's definitely NOT open nor libre.
He explained his reasoning in the video. He said a malicious copy of newpipe got forked and uploaded to the play store and he would like to prevent that from happening.
that's no excuse at all. This way they are restricting everyone's freedom.
Free software, or if you prefer, open source, is based on the principle that everyone can use the code for any purpose (some licenses have copyleft but that just requires you to share your modifications to the code).
A malicious actor will simply grab this app code anyway, don't giving a crap about the license and put ads on top. If they are a malicious actor after all, I highly doubt the license will stop them.
What the license is stopping are legitimate community forks. There's a fork of Newpipe that adds Sponsorblock support, for example, which comes super handy. If community forks weren't allowed, it wouldn't be possible at all.
Having a license allows them to go after the malicious actor with legal backing.
They should allow that. With gpl, the name is protected and that's all that matters.
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.
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
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?
Sideloading on iOS is free but a total PITA. There is little incentive to build an app for such a small userbase
Hrmmmm. I'm not certain I'm liking YOUR gratitude, sir or ma'am.
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 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.
He says in the video it is this way so they can legally pursue forks with malware and advertisements.
Youtube fails to fight its clones and you think they will succeed? It's only disuasive
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...
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.
You are mistaken. Please read The Open Source Definition and the Open-source software wikipedia article, and then kindly edit your post to remove the inaccurate statement "The Software is open-source".
I have found three comments from you, where you insert yourself as an expert on what Open Source is/not is. Although you do link to some sources, you do so without arguing your point. IMO this is not a constructive way of communication. Since I believe your perspective is purist but overall not too helpful, I will go through the trouble an actually argue the point:
Your problem is following sentence published by the OSI: "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources." Which FUTO does - they won't allow you to put ads on top of their software and distribute it. But I hope that you would agree with me that GNU GPL is an Open Source License. However, they do have a copyleft which practically makes selling software impossible. If you use a library which uses the GPL, you have to make your sources available - which makes selling a compiled version a difficult task...
If we look at Wikipedia, we see following sentence: "Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design.", Grayjay fulfils this. Wikipedia continues: "{...}. Depending on the license terms, others may then download, modify, and publish their version {...}", you are allowed to download and modify Grayjay. They do not allow you to commercially distribute your modifications, which is a license term.
Lets look at a big OSS company. Red Hat writes: "An open source development model is the process used by an open source community project to develop open source software. The software is then released under an open source license, so anyone can view or modify the source code." These criteria are fulfilled by the FUTO TEMPORARY LICENSE (Last updated 7 June 2023). Red Hat does not mention the right to redistribute anywhere I could find it.
To those who actually read up to this point: I hope you find this helpful to form your own opinion based on your own research.