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)

  • 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