Grayjay - Follow Creators, Not Platforms
grayjay.app
Grayjay is a unique media application that revolutionizes the relationship between content creators and their audience. Our app democratizes the content delivery process, shifting the focus from platforms to creators themselves.

Watched Louis Rossman today, and he’s part of the team behind a new app for watching online video content - not just youtube, but nebula, peertube, twitch and more.

adblock already integrated, works amazingly with a quick test on my end - it’s an app in the Lemmy spirit

(it’s got a paid model similar to winrar, you don’t have to pay - but they do want you to - opensource and all)

  • LemmyNameMyself@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5634·
    1 year ago

    It is open source but you can’t publish modified code (this is to ensure there will be no malicious forks like there was with newpipe)

    plus you missed the entire point:

    … app for watching online video content - not just youtube, but nebula, peertube, twitch and more.

    It’s an app that allows you to watch the same creators across many platforms

      • Kidplayer_666@lemm.eeEnglish
        182·
        1 year ago

        That’s not the problem. The question is, stopping actors that put ads and paywalls behind modified source, which technically isn’t malicious, it’s just being a jerk and this licensing makes it much easier to take down. Ofc, if he actually wanted it to be open source, he’d just force all derivatives to be non commercial.

      • figaro@lemdro.idEnglish
        91·
        1 year ago

        I mean, at least in this case he can take down fake copies from the most popular app stores. That mitigates the reach of malicious clones a lot.

    • Fedora@lemmy.haigner.meEnglish
      751·
      1 year ago

      FUTO Temporary License (FTL) violates the following open-source principles:

      • Open source licenses must allow free redistribution. FTL allows license suspension and termination at any time, without notice, for any or no reason.
      • Open source licenses must allow source code distribution. FTL allows restrictions to access the code at any time, without notice, for any or no reason.
      • Open source licenses must allow modifications. FTL allows modifications only for non-commercial use, or maybe not even that. FTL dodges the word modifications here, no clue.
      • Open source licenses must explicitly allow distribution of software built from modified source code. FTL forbids distribution of software built from modified source code for commercial use.
      • Open source licenses must not discriminate against persons/groups and fields of endeavor. FTL allows license suspension and termination at any time, without notice, for any or no reason.

      The FTL enables the following practices:

      • Copyright holders can change the license terms.
      • Copyright holders can re-license everything.
      • Copyright holders can target specific groups and individuals with discriminatory license terms.
      • Copyright holders can close source everything.
      • Copyright holders can forbid specific groups and individuals from using their work.
      • Lennard@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        201·
        1 year ago

        Wow, this is a high quality comment.

        I guess it’s understandable to be concerned about licensing when putting money and work into a project like this, but I still hope they change their mind.

    • rush@lemm.eeEnglish
      22·
      1 year ago

      newpipe does YouTube, SoundCloud, Peertube, and Bandcamp. NewPipe isn’t YouTube-Only.

    • 520@kbin.social
      101·
      1 year ago

      It is open source but you can’t publish modified code (this is to ensure there will be no malicious forks like there was with newpipe)

      1. that is not open source. That is source available.

      2. because we all know that license agreements are a line that trojan distributors will not cross. Not malware distribution, not hacking laws, but copyright infringement. They’d never do that at all.

      • Hate@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        because we all know that license agreements are a line that trojan distributors will not cross. Not malware distribution, not hacking laws, but copyright infringement. They’d never do that at all.

        I believe it would be significantly easier to submit a takedown request for copyright issues, compared to reporting an app for being malicious.

        • 520@kbin.social
          1·
          1 year ago

          That’s not the case at all. These kind of Trojan operations are fly-by-night setups, and have the advantage of being able to react far faster than the official Devs. By the time you as the dev even know of the app’s existence, they’ve already infected hundreds. And when you do get round to filing a takedown notice, they’ll be back up the next day under a different name.

          Even Nintendo can’t get copyright infringing shit off Play Store in any fast capacity. Heck, Google will even run ads for people blatantly breaking copyright laws.

          Edit: and that’s before considering that Google won’t let them onto play store and being only source available excludes them from eligibility for official F-Droid repos. They’re going to have an absolute bitch of a time dealing with fakes and Trojans, even if they didn’t release the source code at all