That’s their goal. They have good intentions.
But it also means no commercial use.
You can’t do “Hey, can you add this feature to this app, I’ll pay you” or “Here is much improved version you can buy from me” or “We give you paid support and help for this software for your company”.
Eventually all improvements bounce back to original creators anyway, see: vital paid Wordpress theme ecosystem, most of them being GPL licenced.
With project getting bigger such restriction can be almost as bad as with propietary app. Like, imagine Linux kernel but only with Linus Torvalds having right to sell computers with it or offer any services making money.
you are not entitled to use or do anything with the code for any commercial or other purpose, other than review, compilation and non-commercial distribution in accordance with the terms of this license.
“review” means to access, analyse, test and otherwise review the code as a reference, for the sole purpose of analysing it for defects.
doesn’t it allow compilation and non-commercial distribution? I don’t agree with the license (not free or open source), but I’m genuinely curious on what specifically doesn’t allow source code modification.
It does allow compilation and non-commercial distribution, as per the terms my comment above. If you’re curious as to what disallows source code modifications, that is also contained in the terms included in my comment above.
The license is technically open source (by the strict Stallman definition of “you can see the code”) but certainly not FOSS.
Very disappointing. Louis seems to think that making a restrictive license that’s easy to revoke will help the fight against Play Store clones. He accidentally sent people to a Newpipe clone once and that’s why they should have the right to kill your license at any point in time for any reason or no reason at all.
He accidentally sent people to a Newpipe clone once and that’s why they should have the right to kill your license at any point in time for any reason or no reason at all.
That’s only half the reason, let’s not forget opposition lobbyists abusing unidentified loopholes in his initial R2R drafts, which are very costly to rectify later both time wise and monetary wise, even if at all possible. The mindset of companies screwing with you is probably not something that is easy to shake off, especially encountering it each day fighting serialisation and other rubbish just to repair someones macbook.
While not ideal, I respect his decision taken with the license chosen, even if it’s against the spirit of what most people consider to be open source.
The organisation behind the app, FUTO, wants to take control back from companies and put into the hands of people, and while we can make the argument that FUTO are being hypocritical by keeping the keys to the castle per se, they have delivered an app that puts control back in our hands - removing the need to have a separate youtube, patreon, nebula and soundcloud app, alongside others, where you can follow individual creators easier on the platforms where you financially support them.
It won’t appeal to people who just want to watch YouTube without ads (go NewPipe, Revanced etc…) or staunch FOSS supporters, both of which are seeking other ideals from their media consumption apps of choice.
The kind of people who will be using this app the most right now IMO will be Nebula and Patreon users, this app is like a dream come true compared to the official ones
The Patreon integration seems to be broken, but it’s alpha software so I can’t blame them. The UI seems to be a lot better than a lot of alternative clients, including Newpipe.
I get his “down with the corporations” stance, but AGPL + basic copyright law will scare away the corpos just as easily, without limiting user freedom. The plugins for third party platforms all seem to be GPLv3 licensed, so they do know about better licenses (though I’m guessing that’s just to comply with some GPL dependency they use to access Youtube).
Netflix isn’t going to release something that they have to publish ALL code for, including their DRM library. AGPL is to corporations like garlic is to vampires, it scares away all the big ones and only leaves the ones that weren’t going to care about your silly little license anyway. Google famously bans all use of AGPL tools internally. However, good luck getting Tencent China to pay you a dime when they steal your code, or going after Huawei when they fork the project and stuff it full of CCP spyware.
The thing is that AGPL is also viral to network services. If a piece of AGPL makes it into the code that renders the Google homepage, they’re technically obliged to hand over the source code to the entirety of the software that piece of software is included in, just because AGPL code generated the HTML.
The risks don’t outweigh the benefits, Google concludes. I think that proves the effectiveness of AGPL as a way to scare of big corporations more than anything.
The GNU definition. I don’t think the majority sticks to their definitions, but there is no “official” definition for it by any measure. On the other hand the internet also struggles to understand that “open source” does not equal “open governance” whenever open source projects are selective in contributions from outside contributors, let alone understanding how the right combination of patents can make an open source project entirely useless for anything more than a hobby project.
While most people follow the Netscape/OSI definition, GNU has basically started the modern open source movement, finding its earliest origins in Stallman being annoyed that he couldn’t add the fonts of his choice to a Xerox printer.
Open source, in its lightest form, means the source is open, with no further implications. Free software (not free as in beer, obviously) is what people expect when they hear “open source”. Free, open-source software (FOSS) is what the OSI has rebranded into “open source”, but the OSI interpretation is not universal. Even with FOSS software, people heavily debate whether or not you’re allowed to sell FOSS software (you actually can, even with GPL, even if you didn’t write most of it, but people get hung up on “free”).
Is there any way to view live content in New pipe? I love watching the young Turks when it’s on, but I have to use the YouTube app because I cannot figure out how to watch a live broadcast in new pipe.
Unfortunately not Open Source: https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master/LICENSE
I’ll keep using NewPipe. Their software seems neat, I’ll happly pay for it, but no way I’ll do if there is licence like that.
Edit: They say the licence is only temporary. Let’s keep an eye which one they’ll choose later.
Louis explains the license in the video. You can fork it and modify it, but if you fill it up with ads, spyware, malware etc., they fill fuck you.
That’s their goal. They have good intentions. But it also means no commercial use.
You can’t do “Hey, can you add this feature to this app, I’ll pay you” or “Here is much improved version you can buy from me” or “We give you paid support and help for this software for your company”. Eventually all improvements bounce back to original creators anyway, see: vital paid Wordpress theme ecosystem, most of them being GPL licenced.
With project getting bigger such restriction can be almost as bad as with propietary app. Like, imagine Linux kernel but only with Linus Torvalds having right to sell computers with it or offer any services making money.
You can not modify the source code.
doesn’t it allow compilation and non-commercial distribution? I don’t agree with the license (not free or open source), but I’m genuinely curious on what specifically doesn’t allow source code modification.
It does allow compilation and non-commercial distribution, as per the terms my comment above. If you’re curious as to what disallows source code modifications, that is also contained in the terms included in my comment above.
ah, I see. thanks
The license is technically open source (by the strict Stallman definition of “you can see the code”) but certainly not FOSS.
Very disappointing. Louis seems to think that making a restrictive license that’s easy to revoke will help the fight against Play Store clones. He accidentally sent people to a Newpipe clone once and that’s why they should have the right to kill your license at any point in time for any reason or no reason at all.
That’s only half the reason, let’s not forget opposition lobbyists abusing unidentified loopholes in his initial R2R drafts, which are very costly to rectify later both time wise and monetary wise, even if at all possible. The mindset of companies screwing with you is probably not something that is easy to shake off, especially encountering it each day fighting serialisation and other rubbish just to repair someones macbook.
While not ideal, I respect his decision taken with the license chosen, even if it’s against the spirit of what most people consider to be open source.
The organisation behind the app, FUTO, wants to take control back from companies and put into the hands of people, and while we can make the argument that FUTO are being hypocritical by keeping the keys to the castle per se, they have delivered an app that puts control back in our hands - removing the need to have a separate youtube, patreon, nebula and soundcloud app, alongside others, where you can follow individual creators easier on the platforms where you financially support them.
It won’t appeal to people who just want to watch YouTube without ads (go NewPipe, Revanced etc…) or staunch FOSS supporters, both of which are seeking other ideals from their media consumption apps of choice.
The kind of people who will be using this app the most right now IMO will be Nebula and Patreon users, this app is like a dream come true compared to the official ones
The Patreon integration seems to be broken, but it’s alpha software so I can’t blame them. The UI seems to be a lot better than a lot of alternative clients, including Newpipe.
I get his “down with the corporations” stance, but AGPL + basic copyright law will scare away the corpos just as easily, without limiting user freedom. The plugins for third party platforms all seem to be GPLv3 licensed, so they do know about better licenses (though I’m guessing that’s just to comply with some GPL dependency they use to access Youtube).
Netflix isn’t going to release something that they have to publish ALL code for, including their DRM library. AGPL is to corporations like garlic is to vampires, it scares away all the big ones and only leaves the ones that weren’t going to care about your silly little license anyway. Google famously bans all use of AGPL tools internally. However, good luck getting Tencent China to pay you a dime when they steal your code, or going after Huawei when they fork the project and stuff it full of CCP spyware.
Wow, TIL. That is pretty heavy handed…
The thing is that AGPL is also viral to network services. If a piece of AGPL makes it into the code that renders the Google homepage, they’re technically obliged to hand over the source code to the entirety of the software that piece of software is included in, just because AGPL code generated the HTML.
The risks don’t outweigh the benefits, Google concludes. I think that proves the effectiveness of AGPL as a way to scare of big corporations more than anything.
Technically open source in what definition? Not by Open Source Initiative definition (https://opensource.org/osd/), not in Wikipedia’s definition (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source)…
Public code on GitLab does not mean open source in the same way public video on YouTube does not mean Creative Commons.
The GNU definition. I don’t think the majority sticks to their definitions, but there is no “official” definition for it by any measure. On the other hand the internet also struggles to understand that “open source” does not equal “open governance” whenever open source projects are selective in contributions from outside contributors, let alone understanding how the right combination of patents can make an open source project entirely useless for anything more than a hobby project.
While most people follow the Netscape/OSI definition, GNU has basically started the modern open source movement, finding its earliest origins in Stallman being annoyed that he couldn’t add the fonts of his choice to a Xerox printer.
Open source, in its lightest form, means the source is open, with no further implications. Free software (not free as in beer, obviously) is what people expect when they hear “open source”. Free, open-source software (FOSS) is what the OSI has rebranded into “open source”, but the OSI interpretation is not universal. Even with FOSS software, people heavily debate whether or not you’re allowed to sell FOSS software (you actually can, even with GPL, even if you didn’t write most of it, but people get hung up on “free”).
By the literal definition of source code that is open.
But what it mean to be open?
Have you heard of “open” culture or “open” standard that is free to use unless we don’t allow you to?
There is a difference between open source and source available…
I sympathise with his reasoning for the license but still, that sucks.
I think I’ll try it anyway, though. It’s trying to solve a real issue.
Quite unfortunate.
Quite informative. Quite unfortunate.
Is there any way to view live content in New pipe? I love watching the young Turks when it’s on, but I have to use the YouTube app because I cannot figure out how to watch a live broadcast in new pipe.