all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 39 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I will wait until the GitLab has the apk. For one, it feels sus but being Rossmann, i will look the other way. The second issue is that I will not manualy check for updates every app I have on my phone and this app need to be compatible with Obtainium or on F-droid.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Logs are disabled by default in the version I just tried. I like that.

    Otherwise, it basically does what Newpipe does, but supports more platforms, which is really nice.

    The videos I've tried loaded quickly, adding new platforms to the feed loads almost instantly, so very performant, all things considered.

    As far as I understand it, you can pay for a license, but you don't have to?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    As far as I understand it, you can pay for a license, but you don't have to?

    Exactly. Louis Rossman says that if you use it and don't pay, that's "between you and your god".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It would be good if it was FOSS.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No cause they want to be able to prevent people from adding ads and tracking to the app and then redistributing it.

    He talks about this in the announcement video.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I saw the video. Is that really against the FOSS philosophy? I imagine that you can't do that with e.g. the kernel either.

    The licencing they chose is a bit of a hack job, but I see the necessity. IMHO, it's clear that they want to advance the libre software world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's not Libre software. It's source available, which is great for a commercial product, allowing people to compile it themselves, but the license is revocable at any time.

    It's not contributing to the open source ecosystem, so it's not part of the libre environment.

    It's a good thing, I'm glad it exists, and I'm excited to see it spur libre development in the same vein. But it is not open source as the term is commonly used.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    I will never forget whoever decided it would be a good idea to conflate "FOSS" and "open-source" to mean the same fucking thing, and to have to refer to software that has open source code "source available". I see this exact fucking discussion going on at the very minimum once a week...

    Edit: I know it's a common misconception. My point is that it's a misconception because of the term choice. There's a reason we have to explain it over and over and over again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    The person who invented the term "open source" simply intended it to be "free software" but in business speak. The fact some random people on the internet thought it means "source available" is not the term's fault.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    The difference with Linux kernel is that it's way more complicated to persuade someone who just likes the idea of it to install it, so there's really no protection needed - if you're installing a custom kernel (or more likely, a whole OS using that kernel) you probably know enough not to end up downloading malware.

    That's not so true about just providing "random" APKs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    no need for a restrictive license! people can just take an apk and slap ads or malware on top. they do it all the time with fake candy crush apks. So I'm pretty sure they won't care about this license.

    I think that in the license is just a excuse so no one is redistributing the app and they can make money from it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    I don't claim to know what their true intentions are. But if you want your APK with additional malware removed from any appstore, it for sure helps to have terms which don't allow ppl to do so.

    There is nothing wrong about wanting to earn money, but their approach is the weakest. I did not even see a dialogue asking me for money yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 13 points 2 years ago

    There's NewPipe, which is open-source.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    I think it's a good idea, I'm glad they made it, and if it takes off then I look forward to new pipe or free tube incorporating the same functionality into a open source project.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    It's a good start for a Revanced alternative.

    We have Newpipe and Libretube for complete local video management but it's nice to have an additional one to Revanced. Whether it picks up and becomes big that remains to be seen.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    That it probably won't stay available for long

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Wondering if/when an iOS version will be released.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    If they make one, you'd have to sideload it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    It does a combined creator feed. So if you subscribe to a Patreon or whatever it can be on your feed with their normal free stuff.

    That’s what I got from the website. Looks cool but I’m on iOS.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)