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)

  • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    It is open source but you can’t publish modified code

    That’s not what most people consider “open source”.

    It’s pretty hilarious that Rossman thinks malicious forks are going to care about the license, lol. Malicious devs clone Candy Crush and every other proprietary app they can find just to insert ads or maybe malware. Plus, basic trademark law already allows fighting fake apps, I don’t see how such a restrictive license is supposed to help.

    • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months 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.

      • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        A non-commercial license is generally not considered to be FOSS (“open source”). If you build a great, ad-free version that forks off because you disagree with some decision (i.e. you have a fancy recommendation algorithm that upstream doesn’t like), normal open source would allow you to sell access to that app.

        I get that he wants a “just in case” clause to take down forks Rossmann doesn’t like, but the way it’s stated makes the project sound dickish.

      • can@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Oh yeah, because someone who wants to do that is going to see that and think oh no, he doesn’t want us to, guess we shouldn’t

        • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          That’s not the point. The point is takedown actions being a lot easier especially if one of the idiots tries to argue against

    • figaro@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months 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.

      • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I half expected this from Rossman, but he hasn’t written a single line of code. The license seems to have been partially copy pasted from somewhere else, probably by one of the devs. Surely they would’ve informed him about how stupid the license idea is, or at least told him to ask his lawyer.

        Luckily the title does state “temporary license”, maybe they’ll swap it out for a normal license down the line.