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.

Quick shout-out to Grayjay: An app to watch videos on any platform - reducing the power of individual services. The Software is open-source and can be found here: https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay

I will test this out for myself and hope someone here finds this useful.

  •  jet   ( @jet@hackertalks.com ) English
    82•1 year ago

    It’s viewable source, the license does not allow modification and distribution of the modifications. The license also reserves the right to be revoked at any time.

    It’s source available, but it is not what most people would consider open source in the common usage.

      •  Piers   ( @Piers@beehaw.org ) English
        4•11 months ago

        Futo (the organisation developing this app) appears to be a tech billionaire (Eron Wolf) firing his money at the tech industry until it stops being so shit.

        This is from the about page on their website:

        Our Three Pledges

        We will never sell out. All FUTO companies and FUTO-funded projects are expected to remain fiercely independent. They will never exacerbate the monopoly problem by selling out to a monopolist.

        We will never abuse our customers. All FUTO companies and FUTO-funded projects are expected to maintain an honest relationship with their customers. Revenue, if it exists, comes from customers paying directly for software and services. “The users are our product” revenue models are strictly prohibited.

        We will always be transparently devoted to making delightful software. All FUTO-funded projects are expected to be open-source or develop a plan to eventually become so. No effort will ever be taken to hide from the people what their computers are doing, to limit how they use them, or to modify their behavior through their software.

        (From: https://futo.org/what-is-futo/)

        What they say and what they will do could of course differ but they do go to great pains to paint themselves as fundamentally opposed to be sort of action you are worried about.

    •  ToxicWaste   ( @ToxicWaste@lemm.ee ) OP
      11•1 year ago

      I see where you are coming from. Still i would argue that it is open source, since it is open for everyone to see.

      The explanation for this more restrictive license was that they want to prevent what happened to newpipe. Some ppl repackaged newpipe with additional crap, put ads on it etc. They want to have the legal geounds to combat these things.

      While I don’t think, they would go against me for forking it and tweaking things here and there - they have the legal ground to do so…

      •  jet   ( @jet@hackertalks.com ) English
        14•1 year ago

        Their license allows you to modify it, just not to distribute your modifications. For now.

        By the strictest technical definition of the term open source I agree with you.

        But in the cultural zeitgeist it is not open source and that it can’t be used by other projects, people can’t tinker with it and improve it downstream, if this company goes out of business the source code dies with it. At least legally.

        The Microsoft Windows source code is available, if you sign an NDA, and it’s been leaked a couple times online. So if you really want to, Microsoft Windows is source available with some hurdles. But I wouldn’t consider it open source - mostly because it cannot contribute to the ecosystem evolving.

        •  Piers   ( @Piers@beehaw.org ) English
          1•11 months ago

          if this company goes out of business the source code dies with it.

          Despite the fact that probably none of us had heard of them until today, it appears that FUTO has tremendously deep pockets so are very unlikely to go out of business any time soon (which Rossman mentioned in the comments of his video with a link to this one (that I haven’t yet watched) of his interview with the owner a year ago https://www.youtube.com/live/OJPmbcU-Vzo?si=DovtYTWTC3S1QIY-)

        •  ToxicWaste   ( @ToxicWaste@lemm.ee ) OP
          1•11 months ago

          I have found three comments from you, where you insert yourself as an expert on what Open Source is/not is. Although you do link to some sources, you do so without arguing your point. IMO this is not a constructive way of communication. Since I believe your perspective is purist but overall not too helpful, I will go through the trouble an actually argue the point:

          Your problem is following sentence published by the OSI: “The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources.” Which FUTO does - they won’t allow you to put ads on top of their software and distribute it. But I hope that you would agree with me that GNU GPL is an Open Source License. However, they do have a copyleft which practically makes selling software impossible. If you use a library which uses the GPL, you have to make your sources available - which makes selling a compiled version a difficult task…

          If we look at Wikipedia, we see following sentence: “Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design.”, Grayjay fulfils this. Wikipedia continues: “{…}. Depending on the license terms, others may then download, modify, and publish their version {…}”, you are allowed to download and modify Grayjay. They do not allow you to commercially distribute your modifications, which is a license term.

          Lets look at a big OSS company. Red Hat writes: “An open source development model is the process used by an open source community project to develop open source software. The software is then released under an open source license, so anyone can view or modify the source code.” These criteria are fulfilled by the FUTO TEMPORARY LICENSE (Last updated 7 June 2023). Red Hat does not mention the right to redistribute anywhere I could find it.

          To those who actually read up to this point: I hope you find this helpful to form your own opinion based on your own research.

    •  filcuk   ( @filcuk@lemmy.zip ) 
      7•11 months ago

      Not sure what part of a free YT+ frontend that doesn’t require permissions or an account you don’t trust, but the reason is they don’t want people to fork it freely and spread a version with malware, like happened to NewPipe.

    •  hikaru755   ( @hikaru755@feddit.de ) 
      5•11 months ago

      What exactly do you mean by “trust”, here? Yes, it’s not fully FOSS, and I do understand why you wouldn’t like or use it because of that, but you can still verify the code, compile it yourself and build and run it with your own modifications, so how would being fully FOSS make you trust it more?

  •  navi   ( @navi@lemmy.tespia.org ) 
    14•11 months ago

    I wish somewhere on their site or anywhere in that description they’d say “Android App”.

    I was a little disappointed as an iOS user browsing their site trying to find the iOS App Store link 😬.

    Edit: I appreciate the advice to switch to Android but I really wasn’t asking. 😅

    •  LainOfTheWired   ( @LainOfTheWired@lemy.lol ) English
      4•1 year ago

      All you can hope is that some day they are forced to support 3rd party apps because of some anti monopoly lawsuit telling them they have too.

      But good luck with that, Apple is very powerful and can probably just buy out the right lawyers and judges in that situation.

      Or if they were forced to it would have an Apple twist on it like they get to approve the 3rd party app stores that are allowed or something.

      Just get an Android phone you can put a custom ROM on and you’ll have a very good experience.

      •  Piers   ( @Piers@beehaw.org ) English
        2•11 months ago

        All you can hope is that some day they are forced to support 3rd party apps because of some anti monopoly lawsuit telling them they have too.

        I’m not sure if you are aware already but the reason Epic are announcing a million changes to their business is that the previous business plan was based around them successfully throwing a fortune at suing Apple to force them to support 3rd party apps and they tried and failed.

        I think if it were ever going to happen that way, Epic would have succeeded.

        That’s not to say it won’t still happen one day through political means. Seems plausible the EU might force it at some stage.

  •  Skimmer   ( @Skimmer@lemmy.zip ) 
    13•1 year ago

    App looks legitimately amazing. Seems a bit buggy in alpha but I’m sure it’ll be ironed out. I just hope they look into supporting Piped instead of directly connecting to YouTube, as well as SponsorBlock. Once they get those 2 things and iron out some of the bugs, I’ll primarily use it for sure. Its a great concept.

    •  PrivateNoob   ( @PrivateNoob@sopuli.xyz ) 
      4•11 months ago

      Wouldn’t interacting through Piped just introduce an additional communication layer, which makes interacting with YT slower? I see your argument with Piped, but what would be the pros of using Piped which outweighs the additional communication costs?

      •  Skimmer   ( @Skimmer@lemmy.zip ) 
        6•11 months ago

        Pro would just be not directly connecting through Google/YouTube servers, and instead using a proxy. Its a nice privacy benefit. I agree it could make things slower, so I don’t think it should completely replace direct connection with YouTube, but I just think the option would be nice to have.

  •  Arthur Besse   ( @cypherpunks@lemmy.ml ) 
    10•11 months ago

    where did you find that gitlab link? it isn’t linked from the project website; looking at the website i would assume it isn’t free software.

    edit: oh, i see it isn’t actually free software after all, it is under source ‘source visible’ proprietary license. 🥱

        •  ToxicWaste   ( @ToxicWaste@lemm.ee ) OP
          2•11 months ago

          I have found three comments from you, where you insert yourself as an expert on what Open Source is/not is. Although you do link to some sources, you do so without arguing your point. IMO this is not a constructive way of communication. Since I believe your perspective is purist but overall not too helpful, I will go through the trouble an actually argue the point:

          Your problem is following sentence published by the OSI: “The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources.” Which FUTO does - they won’t allow you to put ads on top of their software and distribute it. But I hope that you would agree with me that GNU GPL is an Open Source License. However, they do have a copyleft which practically makes selling software impossible. If you use a library which uses the GPL, you have to make your sources available - which makes selling a compiled version a difficult task…

          If we look at Wikipedia, we see following sentence: “Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design.”, Grayjay fulfils this. Wikipedia continues: “{…}. Depending on the license terms, others may then download, modify, and publish their version {…}”, you are allowed to download and modify Grayjay. They do not allow you to commercially distribute your modifications, which is a license term.

          Lets look at a big OSS company. Red Hat writes: “An open source development model is the process used by an open source community project to develop open source software. The software is then released under an open source license, so anyone can view or modify the source code.” These criteria are fulfilled by the FUTO TEMPORARY LICENSE (Last updated 7 June 2023). Red Hat does not mention the right to redistribute anywhere I could find it.

          To those who actually read up to this point: I hope you find this helpful to form your own opinion based on your own research.

          •  Arthur Besse   ( @cypherpunks@lemmy.ml ) 
            3•11 months ago

            where you insert yourself as an expert on what Open Source is/not is

            this is not really a controversial topic; assuming you were just confused, I linked to the definition and (in another comment you replied to) to the list of governments and other entities which all agree about it. i again encourage you to read those links as it sounds like you haven’t.

            since you’ve declined to remove the inaccurate statement “The Software is open-source” from your post here in !privacy@lemmy.ml I am removing the post. (since I am an admin rather than a mod of the community, the moderation action will only federate to instances running the latest version of lemmy, which your instance isn’t, but fyi it should be removed from lemmy.ml and any other instances running updated software.)

            fwiw i think this is the first time i’ve used my admin privileges to remove something in a discussion i participated in myself, which tbh feels a little weird, but since this is a clear case of someone declining to remove a post making an objectively false claim, i’m going to.

    •  Piers   ( @Piers@beehaw.org ) English
      1•11 months ago

      Android 10 was released in 2019. Add on a year for updates and that means that it supports most phones from within the last 5 years. I think that’s pretty reasonable for a brand new app.