Watched Louis Rossman today, and he’s part of the team behind a new app for watching online video content - not just youtube, but nebula, peertube, twitch and more.
adblock already integrated, works amazingly with a quick test on my end - it’s an app in the Lemmy spirit
(it’s got a paid model similar to winrar, you don’t have to pay - but they do want you to - opensource and all)
You must log in or # to comment.
It’s not open source. It’s source available.
It’s not open source…but the source is open.
Not the same
Its open source, not free software.
ReVanced taps into my history with microg. When I watch stuff on desktop with Firefox and uBlock Origin, I want those videos to show as watched on my phone when I open ReVanced so I don’t get recommended the same stuff. That works.
GrayJay can’t do this. It’s not better. It’s a good idea, but it’s a side grade.
As lemann pointed out there’s a setting for that in the YT add-on im the sources tab, not the app settings. Also myself and others have had loading issues with Revanced. It’ll start playing, suddenly start buffering and never stops. Grayjay works as it should and still has the settings I want from Revanced. Not to argue, just want to let others in my situation know Grayjay is the upgrade we need.
I had that issue and it was because I needed to update Revanced.
That’s what I saw in a reddit post way back but updating and reinstall never fixed it. I was using YT on browser for a while just because it was more reliable and didn’t have ads. UI sucked ass though. Ky biggest critique on Grayjay so far is the lack of vertical swipes to adjust volume/brightness.
I’m having the same problem with revanced right now. Buffering and pausing and often never recovering.
Make the jump to Grayjay, my friend. It’s worth it.
Thanks, I actually have it installed and I’ve been playing with it. It’s been playing smoothly.
The problem is that the authentication with my account is failing, so I can’t get my subscriptions and watch history. I’m still working on figuring it out
Grayjay can do this - there is a toggle in the settings for the YouTube addin to sync watch data with your Google account.
It’s a one-time sync though. If I want history from what I watched on my desktop today I have to resync.
That’s the exact opposite of what most people want from an app like this.
It’s what I want from an app like this 🤷♂️
It’s not enough to make work around for YouTube. We need a new YouTube.
True, but with the ability to combine all competitors in a single feed a significant hurdle has been removed
There are several "new YouTube"s. The problem is getting people to transition to them. And this is intended to do exactly that.
What’s Piped?
Piped is alternative frontend, so still youtube
that’s literally the whole point of this?
the point of this is a new youtube is unlikely to take off because people can’t start using it without missing all their regular content.
this means you can keep all your regular content and add new sources, with the same creators, which means they can start to move to new platforms and take their followers. that’s how we’ll replace youtube.
basically Newpipe but only source available, not really free software or open source, so they are restricting your freedoms.
Just keep using Newpipe instead.
Have you used it? It’s like NewPipe except that it’s better in almost every way. The ONLY downside is that it’s just old-fashioned open source instead of FOSS.
It’s not open source
It is open source but you can’t publish modified code (this is to ensure there will be no malicious forks like there was with newpipe)
plus you missed the entire point:
… app for watching online video content - not just youtube, but nebula, peertube, twitch and more.
It’s an app that allows you to watch the same creators across many platforms
The term “open source” generally refers to the definition by the Open Source Initiative.
Not allowing publishing of modified source code is in violation with the criteria of open source.
FLOSS or die
please edit this post to remove the incorrect claim that this is open source, as it is clearly not.
This whole discussion is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It depends completely on how you define open source, and there is no single universally agreed upon definition. Per this article, there are over 80 variations of open source licenses all with different term and conditions. Some are more permissive, some less so. Yet they can all be considered a variation of open source, though I’m anticipating you wouldn’t agree? For this particular app, there are some restrictions in place aimed to protect users from malicious forks. IMO this is a good thing. I can’t understand why you are acting like the definition police here, it seems very pedantic tbh.
Many software buyers – even new developers – misunderstand the term “open source” to mean the software is available to use, copy, modify, and distribute as desired. This misunderstanding may arise from confusing open source with public domain or shareware, both of which are free to use and modify without specific permissions or licensing.
The truth is that, for the most part, open-source software is covered by one of several types of open source licenses and is not necessarily free of charge either.
In contrast to proprietary software where vendors typically make it impossible to access, copy or modify the source code, open source code permits the use, reuse, sharing, modification, and distribution of the code in other programs or applications. But just as with proprietary software licensing, open source software is subject to various legal terms and restrictions, depending on the type of open source license in force.
there is no single universally agreed upon definition
There is an overwhelmingly agreed-upon definition. Look at who agrees with it: https://opensource.org/authority/
And who doesn’t agree? Historically, a few of the giant software companies who were threatened by the free software movement thought that “open source” was a way for them to talk the talk without walking the walk. However, years ago, even they all eventually agreed about OSI’s definition and today they use terms like source-available software for their products that don’t meet it.
Today it is only misinformed people like yourself, and grifters trying to profit off of the positive perception of the term. I’m assuming Louis Rossman is in the former category too; we’ll see in the near future if he acknowledges that the FUTO license is not open source and/or relicenses the project under an open source license.
there are over 80 variations of open source licenses all with different term and conditions. Some are more permissive, some less so. Yet they can all be considered a variation of open source, though I’m anticipating you wouldn’t agree?
There are many open source licenses, and many non-open-source licenses. there is a list of licenses which OSI has analyzed and found to meet their definition; licenses which aren’t on that list can be open source too… but to see if they are, you would need to read the license and the definition.
Have you read The Open Source Definition? I’m assuming not.
I can’t understand why you are acting like the definition police here, it seems very pedantic tbh.
It’s because (1) FUTO are deceiving their customers by claiming that their product is something which it isn’t, and (2) they’re harming the free and open source software movements by telling people that terms mean things contrary to what they actually mean.
You make some good points, but whether it exactly meets every criteria of open source software as per that definition or not, I really can’t bring myself to care that much either way. I get that it’s important to you, and that’s fine, but not everyone cares that much about it. People can read and vet the source code, the intention of the project seems good, and the intention of the authors in deviating slightly from pure open source principles seems to be to protect their users from scammy clones, which also seems fine with me. TBH we’re not really into strictly following the letter of the law in the pirate community, and if this app helps people to avoid surveillance capitalism and puts even the slightest dent in Google’s massive profits then I’m all for it. Anyways, have a good one.
deviating slightly from pure open source principles
saying that prohibiting redistribution is just “deviating slightly from pure open source principles” is like saying that a dish with a bit of meat in it is just “deviating slightly” from a vegetarian recipe.
if you saw a restaurant labeling their food as vegetarian because their dishes were based on vegetarian recipes, but had some meat added, would you say that it seems like their intentions are good?
to protect their users from scammy clones
As I said in another comment, the way free open source software projects should (and can, and do) generally do this is using trademark law. He could license it under any free software license but require derivatives to change the name to avoid misleading or confusing users. This is what Firefox and many other projects do.
TBH we’re not really into strictly following the letter of the law in the pirate community
In the video announcing the project Louis Rossmann explicitly says he intends to vigorously enforce this license. Since it is a copyright license, the only ways of actually enforcing it are to send DMCA takedowns and/or sue people for copyright infringement.
What fresh hell of goalpost moving is this? You’re so bad faith.
It is not free software but it is open source. Stop gatekeeping the term. I can look at the code and modify it to my hearts content. I can also watch as the project is being developed. That means it’s open source. It would be free software if you where also allowed to redistribute it but I can fully see why they do not want that
it is open source. Stop gatekeeping the term
i guess you didn’t click the link in my comment? here is another, with a list of governments and other entities who all agree about the definition: https://opensource.org/authority/
Oh so what you’re trying to say is that, because the license they chose is not on this list, it’s not open source. Stupid take IMO but you do you
It isn’t about the list of approved licenses, it’s about the criteria for being added to the list. New licenses regularly meet the definition. This license clearly does not.
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.
You can argue that “open source” can mean other things that what the OSI defined it to mean, but the truth of the matter is that almost everyone thinks of the OSI or similar definition when they talk about “open source”. Insisting on using the term this way is deliberately misleading. Even your own links don’t support your argument.
A bit further down in the Wikipedia page is this:
Main article: Open-source software
Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use for any (including commercial) purpose, or modification from its original design.
And if you go to the main article, it is apparent that the OSI definition is treated as the de fact definition of open source. I’m not going to quote everything, but here are examples of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Open-source_versus_source-availableAnd from Red Hat, literally the first sentence
Open source is a term that originally referred to open source software (OSS). Open source software is code that is designed to be publicly accessible—anyone can see, modify, and distribute the code as they see fit.
…
And if we follow that link:
In actuality, neither free software nor open source software denote anything about cost—both kinds of software can be legally sold or given away.
But the Red Hat page is a bad source anyway because it is written like a short intro and not a formal definition of the concept. Taking a random sentence from it and arguing that it doesn’t mention distribution makes no sense.
Here is a more comprehensive page from Red Hat, that clearly states that they evaluate whether a license is open source based on OSI and the FSF definitions.
since you copy+pasted this wall of confused text to me in 3 different places I guess I’ll reply here too, in the not-deleted thread: https://opensource.org/authority/ (this is not even a controversial topic)
Is there SponserBlock support?
If it supported both SponserBlock and DeArrow I’d switch in a heartbeat. Until then I’ll stick to ReVanced.
I just bought the FUTO voice input app as well from them and it’s genuinely amazing. It has punctuation where it needs to. It cuts out all the UM’s. And the best part is, I don’t have to pretend that I’m talking to a robot. I can just speak as if I’m talking to a normal person and it gets it right nearly every single time. It is so worth the $5.
This entire comment was typed with it, and I did not edit a single thing.
Thank you so much for this suggestion. It’s really a great step towards the end of tedious voice messages. Works great but is a bit slow when using the multilang voice model. I don’t mind.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
there could be a patchset made with ReVanced-CLI. It’s an easy bypass if you know a bit of Java/Kotlin, even with release APKs
deleted by creator
You don’t need to bypass anything. You can just not pay and the app will continue functioning just fine.
It’s the WinRAR model.
The patching is meant to convey that message of never paying, by removing the option and prompts + nags to pay, as well as create the experience of an app that is entirely free without such nags. Such patches exist for WinRAR as well to enhance user experience.
Tried playing YouTube and it kept crashing and gave up. I’m happy with NewPipe
It is an interesting project, not sure where it goes. The title is deeply misleading though. The features of ReVanced make YouTube so much better, whereas this project doesn’t seem to be about making YouTube better so much as circumnavigating YouTube for the comment boxes and as your hub to creators. They seem to be doing different things.
What do they do differently?
So, I really want to be optimistic about this project. I love that it integrates multiple sources, that it lets you use different identities that are not attached to any of these services. I installed it and already paid for it even, because I love initiatives like this.
I think it’s unsustainable. In 5 years, everyone who’d use the app’s already paid for it, which means the devs have no incentive to continue to work, and funding dries up. When that happens, they’ll of course just let the app run until the plugins stop working. Nobody will be able to pick it up and continue development in an open forum because it’s not FLOSS.
My hope is they re-license it under a copyleft license later, but I’m not optimistic about that happening. With how things are now, it does appear to be doomed to enshittification.
I was excited about this but it’s mobile only?
With how locked down mobile is compared to desktop I think it’s a good thing to start with mobile
WDYM by locked down?
Is it better than NewPipe x SponsorBlock?
It sounds interesting, but… Android only? I don’t actually watch much video on my phone. It’s mostly on my desktop browser.
There are no ad blocking YouTube apps on iOS so I suspect Apple blocks them. The DMA will soon let us in the EU install whatever we like, but fuck Apple.
Sadly it’s for the large part the recommendation algorithm that I’m on YouTube for. Most of the videos I watch are from people I’m not subscribed to.
I’ve always wondered if people like you existed! Fascinating.
Not criticizing you, just personally I don’t want any recommendation algos in any of my media.
Yeah people have mixed opinions about that, but atleast in my case YouTube’s recommendations does a really good job at finding content I’m interested in. It just needs some training for it to do a good job. When there’s something I’m not interested in, I just flag it as “not interested” and then that stuff dissapears and is replaced with something else.
