I love the idea of a privacy-focused fronend for YouTube, but every time I visit a piped link, it just spins forever. Both on my Linux desktop and my Android phone.
Maybe I’m doing something wrong?
Here is the latest one I tried and failed to load.
I love the idea of a privacy-focused fronend for YouTube, but every time I visit a piped link, it just spins forever. Both on my Linux desktop and my Android phone.
Maybe I’m doing something wrong?
Here is the latest one I tried and failed to load.
They don’t give a flying crap if you modify the source and compile it privately for yourself, they just don’t want people or companies making profit from their works or distributing said modifications without their approval.
Then why do they leave permission to do so out of their license? (So far, at least.)
That’s called “proprietary.”
They’re not worried about individuals like ourselves making our own private modifications if we so care to. They know 95%+ of individuals out there aren’t even coders anyways, they just expect the few that do happen to go out of their way to modify their apps don’t distribute their mods without authorization.
The main infrastructure of their license is to make sure the big companies out there can’t legally rip off their code, alter it and sell it under their own branding or such.
Apparently they are, because they don’t allow it in their license and the way the license is written makes its absence seem rather conspicuous and intentional.
If they do eventually make good on their promise (from “pledge #3”) to make it Open Source, then maybe I’ll be interested. Until then, I’m not taking the word of a random Lemmy user what they are “worried about individuals like ourselves” doing. I’m taking their own (legal department’s) word.
You have to understand that every piece of FOSS software out there allows anyone to “legally rip off their code, alter it and sell it under their own branding or such.” Any piece of software out there that doesn’t allow that does not qualify as Open Source or Free Software.
(It rustles my jimmies to use the term “rip off” in this context, but I hoped quoting your exact words directly would make it clearer)
If Grayjay’s license doesn’t allow that and if they see doing that as “ripping off”, then I have no interest in supporting or using that software unless/until that changes.
When I say “I won’t use it unless it’s FOSS,” I mean among other things that I won’t use it unless its license allows anyone to redistribute it and/or any derivative works of it either for profit or not and under a different brand. That’s how FOSS works.
(Ok. One caveat to the above that applies to some FOSS licenses (but probably not all.) I believe if someone violates the terms of, for instance, the GPL, then the permission to continue redistributing is revoked until they’re back in compliance with the terms of the license.)
That sounds like a you problem. I respect the terms of their license, and have no intent or desire to distribute any modified versions of their software, should I ever even care to try modifying anything in the first place.
If you do happen to find ways to improve their software, maybe consider applying with FUTO…