cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/15242858

Saw Louis Rossmans original video on the app and figured (and it may well have been) it would be buggy and awful at that point. Decided to gike it a try, the app has all the options I could want for watching youtube, it’s multiplatform to a much greater degree than Newpipe and it’s forks.

The reason I don’t ever expect to go back to Newpipe or Libretube is the plugins update through the app, meaning I can get bypasses to YouTubes bullshit as fast as they’re developed.

Newpipe is usually updated quickly, but in my experience forks like Tubular that include sponsorblocks often delay me from getting that update.

Overall, very good experience so far!

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    I don’t have any issue with Capitalism. Companies, people and ideas should complete to make them all better. However, the FUTO license is anti capitalistic as it grants GreyJay a monopoly over the software. You can not fork it and retain ownership of the code. The code is owned by them and you can’t start a completing organization from a fork. If FUTO were to make GrayJay problematic by doing something such as adding invasive telemetry and ads then you couldn’t hard fork the project.

    • TootSweet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Damn. Am I about to defend FUTO/GrayJay?

      The license is a lot better than it was previously. (And by that I mean it’s less worse than a basic MIT-style FOSS license, not that it’s “good”.) Now it does allow derivative works (just not derivative works that remove the “pay FUTO” button, and it doesn’t allow selleing GrayJay or derivative works, and it requires a “prominent” notice if you’ve made changes.)

      And the old version had a bit about how FUTO could change the terms at any time for no reason, which basically made it entirely useless.

      You can not fork it and retain ownership of the code.

      Technically, MIT-style licenses (let alone copy-left licenses) don’t either, I’m pretty sure. Though that’s more true in one sense of the GrayJay Core License than of Open Source licenses.

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        The fact that Greyjay prohibits anyone from making money off of means that a fork would be unable to happen.

        • TootSweet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Depends what you mean by “fork”, really. I could clone it down, change something trivial, and run that on my phone for my own personal use. And that would qualify as a “fork” and be allowed by the license.

          But I can’t disagree that a well-maintained, long-lived, publicly-available fork (like, MPV was forked from MPlayer2 or Libreoffice from OpenOffice) seems very unlikely.

          And I’d doubt a third party accepting donations even if they operated on a non-profit basis could be done given the wording.

          What theoretically could be done is that a FOSS drop-in replacement for GrayJay (even one compatible with GrayJay plugins, many of which I’ve heard are actually FOSS.) Though anyone who undertook that would have to be careful to make it happen in a proper well-documented clean-room fashion.