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.
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
27 points (90.9% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54500 readers
625 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
please edit this post to remove the incorrect claim that this is open source, as it is clearly not.
The source is freely available, but it does not fit the common definition of open source. Namely, you're not allowed to redistribute with tracking, malware, or adds. I guess this has been a problem with piped?
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master/LICENSE: FUTO TEMPORARY LICENSE It seems like it's more CC non-commercial and not truly libre but I can understand why someone would say open source.
I can understand why someone would say open source
I can understand why too: it's either because they were not aware of the widely agreed-upon definition of the term, or because they're being disingenuous. I'm assuming it was the former; whether OP edits the post will reveal if it was actually the latter.
load more comments
(11 replies)
Tried playing YouTube and it kept crashing and gave up. I’m happy with NewPipe
I really hope they add sponsorblock and dearrow support in the future because this is a truly awesome app.
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.
Yeah FOSS or FLOSS (your teeth ^^) is the only viable solution we have found that really works. It's like Democracy IMO, criticize them all you want but that's the only ones that works over time.
basically Newpipe but only source available, not really free software or open source, so they are restricting your freedoms.
Just keep using Newpipe instead.
load more comments
(5 replies)
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.
load more comments
(10 replies)
Tried it out a bit. I Ike the idea of the app being basically an rss read for video platforms. This is great for not having a bunch of apps (twitch app/Xtra for twitch and YT app/Newpipe/skytube/etc. for YT.) A user profile and allowing app comments are nice to have on the app.
However, I'm worried about what Rossmann says in regards to profit and maintenance. The app is moderated/worked-on by (I think paid) professionals and we should pay a license of $9.99 yet the app is also unprofitable and may never turn a profit. So, what's the point in paying for the app?
Rossmann has a millionaire backing up his repair business among other things. So, is some of this being funded by that person and other investors of FUTO or is our money the only thing keeping this afloat? How are these workers getting paid if it's a one time payment and the money is uncertain? How is the platform going to stay up and pay fair wages? The app is niche and I can't see too many people paying for a license. I also can't see too many workers staying unless they are passionate. Something isn't adding up unless I'm wrong.
Rossmann has a millionaire backing up his repair business
Billionaire, actually.
So, is some of this being funded by that person and other investors of FUTO or is our money the only thing keeping this afloat?
The billionaire (Eron Wulf) is also the founder of FUTO. They don't have investors.
Rossmann has a millionaire backing up his repair business among other things.
Why does everybody seem to know all of this dirt about Louis except me? I've seen this "be suspicious of anything Rossman is involved in" comment a few times in the past few days. I'm out of the loop.
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Is there SponserBlock support?
If it supported both SponserBlock and DeArrow I'd switch in a heartbeat. Until then I'll stick to ReVanced.
view more: next ›