Some Firefox users noticed playback issues on YouTube for several months. These affected high resolution videos only, from 1080p and up. To make matters worse, no clear pattern could be identified.
Some videos played fine, others would stop abruptly when they ran out of buffer.
If someone posts their source code publicly, it’s open source. It’s unreasonable to ask them to review and maintain every PR sent their way. If they want to work on it by themselves, that’s fine. If you want to fork it and make changes yourself, you can. Literally the only qualification for something to be open source is that the source is open.
It’s also unreasonable to be upset if they tell you you’re not allowed to take their work and re-sell it for your own profit. That would be like saying that artists are in the wrong for being upset that all those AI companies used their work to train their bots without asking. “Why would they prevent the creation of nonfree applications that use their work?!” I assume that’s not your position, right?
But as you said, NewPipe is also copyleft, and it seems like you don’t have a problem with that. So I don’t really understand what your issue is with Grayjay/FUTO. It’s reasonable to be concerned about where their funding comes from, but you haven’t mentioned that. You say they have “marketing lies”, but haven’t pointed to any.
It’s perfectly fine for there to be multiple open source solutions to the same problem, and you’re allowed to have a favorite, but that doesn’t warrant dragging the others’ names through the mud for no reason.
Uh, no. That’s called “source-available”. Terms have meanings. And from the day the words “open source” started being used, this definition is what defined them: https://opensource.org/osd
You can’t just redefine an established term because it’s inconvenient to your argument.
Good thing being free/open source doesn’t require that, then? It basically just requires the users be free to make their own modifications freely and distribute them freely (and of course to use the program freely). No requirement for public development involvement at all, really. It’s standard practice but by no means necessary.
They can terminate your license for any reason or no reason (stated in the license) making your fork in violation of copyright law :).
In other words, they can take down your fork if they feel like it. Making the ability to fork useless.
Again, terms have established meanings. See above.
I don’t see how this paragraph relates to my point at all. Is it about the NewPipe paid clones? Because they were illegal anyways (copyleft violation), no egregious license needed.
What do you mean “also copyleft”? Are you implying the GrayJay license is copyleft? Because it absolutely isn’t. Again, established term, definition: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html
I was referring to Rossmann proudly proclaiming that GrayJay is open source in the announcement (?). The immediate aftermath was a gain in goodwill in the free software/open source communities (you can see this on Reddit threads in those communities upon initial announcement), until people dug into the license and found that its actually a proprietary license.
And finally, here’s some particularly nasty parts of the license, which funilly enough you don’t ever see in free/open source licenses (because they’re horribly restrictive terms):
Agreed, which is why you can’t expect to enforce the definition you like on everyone. The only thing about “open source” that we agree on is that the “source” is “open”.
I’m realizing you’re working with outdated information. Take a look at the license again, it’s been updated.
It is literally the definition which has been used since the term’s conception when the open source movement split off from the software freedom movement. It is a well established term with a well established meaning. Just because you don’t want to use that meaning doesn’t mean it isn’t correct and most widely recognised. Its not that I like the definition, it’s that it is the primary definition and always has been.
Taking the words “open” and “source” separately and interpreting them as you like and combining them is just changing well established meanings to suit yourself, when the whole term “open source” is already well defined.
Okay the new one does seem a bit less egregious to be fair but still doesn’t fit the open source definition due to the restrictions on how you’re allowed to use it and redistribute it.
No, it’s the definition the Open Source Initiative has used since their inception. They are just one of many open source communities with their own licenses.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree (which is my entire point). Cheers.
Which… split off from the FSF and the software freedom movement to create the open source movement. Like I said. And that term was never used before they created it. They literally created it and started it’s use. They defined the term. And newcomers don’t get to come and change it because they feel like it.
Again, established definition. Stop trying to legitimise your self-concocted definition of “open source”.
Stop being a meme of yourself lol
I see you have nothing else to say so jumped to ad hominem instead.