11
submitted 6 months ago by Sunny@slrpnk.net to c/technology@lemmy.world

What is Grayjay?

Grayjay is a cutting-edge app that serves as a video player and source aggregator. It allows you to stream and organize videos from various sources, providing a unified platform for your entertainment needs.

It's mostly used as a YouTube frontend^. However, it is now launching as a desktop app for Linux, Mac and Windows.

all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MITM0@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I really wish there was a truly open source version of GrayJay because GrayJay is actually Not OpenSource It's a cool application, don't get me wrong, but it NEEDS to be OpenSource & not "Source-First/Source-Available"

[-] ledix@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

It is open source, just not free open source

[-] MITM0@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago
[-] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

No it's not. SF license allows for noncommercial modification, and it is Source Available.

[-] MITM0@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)
[-] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 1 points 6 months ago

Again, no. The article you link specifically mentions problems with proprietary software that FUTO dislikes, not that Grayjay is proprietary.

The definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proprietary

Grayjay's license does not fit this definition.

[-] MITM0@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

FUTO has exclusive rights to monetize it, If I do a better job then I should be paid no ?

[-] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com -1 points 6 months ago

That's my argument above. No, you should not.

FUTO isn't releasing this as FOSS, but they are doing something much better than most by releasing source available with noncommercial modification.

If you create your own solution, then yes, you should.

I think OSI should consider another tier of licenses that aren't FOSS but still "open" (source available), I don't think Grayjay should he considered FOSS (nor do they).

[-] Dave@lemmy.nz -1 points 6 months ago

Typically licenses not OSI approved are referred to as "Source available" rather than "Open source". This is one reason FUTO (who make Grayjay) refer to their license as "Source first" and not "Open Source" (though they did call it that for a while before clarifying and switching to the new term).

[-] TootSweet@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

And by "clarifying" you mean "dunking on Open Source and parading around like the saviors of the human race for inventing Open-Source-except-with-donation-nags-to-fund-their-fully-for-profit-business." Good job, guys, you've solved enshittification (/s).

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

One of the goals of source first licenses is to stop enshittification since it doesn't allow paid clones

Not saying I agree with their policy, but I would hope more for-profit businesses make their source code available

[-] TootSweet@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

One of the goals of source first licenses is to stop enshittification since it doesn’t allow paid clones

Copyleft prevents enshittification much better than anything in their license. If someone makes a paid clone of some, for instance, AGPL 3.0 program, one person can buy it and release the source code of the paid version and then all of the improvements can be incorporated back into the version from which it was forked.

Unless the paid clone makers go so far as to break the terms of the license. But that's not a problem that the Grayjay license solves any better than the AGPL 3.0.

Grayjay's license is itself a textbook example of enshittification.

Not saying I agree with their policy, but I would hope more for-profit businesses make their source code available

I'm not pissed at FUTO for releasing their source code under a non-FOSS license. I'm pissed at them for doing everything in their power to sabotage Open Source specifically to serve their bottom line while also pretending they're some champion of consumer rights in tech. And it's really shitty to use a .org address to further drive home the lie that they're anything but a for-profit company fucking over consumers to make a profit.

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

The original clone keeps making money from people who don't know any better, even if it's an exact replica. Just look at the windows app store

[-] TootSweet@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago
[-] iopq@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Because that's how unsuspecting people get spyware and viruses. Sure, the clones must publish their source code, but that doesn't stop them from profiting from open source software while contributing nothing

[-] TootSweet@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Can you name any real-world examples of this happening?

Actually, I can. I know before Minetest (a FOSS Minecraft clone (they'd bristle at being called that, but anyway) that has since renamed itself to "Luanti" - I reccommend it, actually) officially supported Android, somebody ported it to Android (I don't remember what they called the clone) and put it on the play store for money. Now, Minetest wasn't under a copyleft license, so the clone wasn't even FOSS (nor was it legally required to be.) I don't remember any malware being involved. The Minetest community did all heave a collective groan when a wave of clueless people who didn't realize it was FOSS started joining Minetest servers. People in the Minetest community definitely resented the clone. But beyond that, no real harm came to the game or its players. Some folks paid for an Android Minetest client that didn't afford them the freedoms guaranteed by the Free Software Definition or Open Source Definition, but at the time the official Minetest client didn't support Android. Aside from that, I don't know of any harm that came from any of that. And had Minetest been under a copyleft license, even less harm would have come of that.

Also, in practice, anyone who's only out to get a quick buck is going to either avoid copylefted code like the plague or just blatantly violate the terms of the license. They're unlikely to actually put forth the effort to compose a proper GPL compliance plan. (In fact, the ongoing U.S. court case "SFC v. Visio" is very apropos. Visio is named as a defendnt in that suit specifically for blatantly violating the terms of the GPL. Specifically the copyleft portions.)

And if someone who does just want to make a quick buck clones some GPLd code and sells it in compliance with the license, I'm still not convinced that does anyone any harm. The GPL was also designed with non-programmer empowerment in mind, specifically allowing the use case where if a non-coder wants a feature added to a piece of GPL'd code, they can commission a coder to add it. But I'm not sure the Grayjay license would allow that even if it would allow one to make changes themselves noncommercially.

I dunno. You seem to be really hung up on "contrubuting nothing". And mind you, I don't think that's uncommon. That's a big part of the whole "post-open-source" thing Parens is involved with these days. If FOSS as a whole was floundering right now in a way that money could solve, I maybe could get on board with the idea that there might be improvements that could be made to the existing FOSS paradigm. (Though something like legally-preserved nag screens in source-available software seems at best a clueless and ham-handed approach to that problem.)

Much more concerning to me is that software respect users' rights. I mostly won't use software I don't feel I can trust (either legally or security-wise.) And FOSS is software I can virtually always trust. When I'm publishing software, I do so under the AGPL v3 because I kinda don't care if anyone sells it. (Though they can always get a free version from my GitLab (yeah, I switched to GitLab before Codeberg was a thing).) I do care if someone distributes (for money or gratis) my code in a way that doesn't afford the end user the four freedoms. Which is why I use AGPL v3 over other options like non-copyleft FOSS licenses or noncommercial licenses.

And, just to repeat this, again, I'm not angry at FUTO for releasing their code under non-FOSS licenses. That's enough to make me not want to use their software. But not enough to make me resent them the way I do. The anger is at the way they've been sabotaging Open Source to the best of their ability while misrepresenting themselves as consumer rights advocates.

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

They have backtracked on that stance because of backlash from the FOSS community. They call themselves "source first" now to not confuse people

https://www.futo.org/about/futo-statement-on-opensource/

I think that's fair

[-] TootSweet@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Too little too late. The damage is already done.

And even on that page, they're still being assholes about Open Source ("Our use of the term 'open source' thus far has been not out of carelessness, but out of disdain for OSI approved licenses which nevertheless allow developers to be exploited by large corporate interests.") while pretending what they've done with the FUTO license is some boon to consumer rights ("Fundamentally, our goals are to build great products that don’t abuse people, beat the tech oligopoly, and elevate the rights of programmers developing software that has source code open to public scrutiny and tinkering."). And they're still not dropping the effort to dilute the term "Open Source" ("The OSI, an organization with confidential charter members and large corporate sponsors, does not have any legal right to say what is and is not 'open source'. It is arrogant of them to lay claim to the definition.").

Also, just as an aside, as page that the words "legal right" in that last quote link to says, the OSI attempted to trademark "Open Source." I'm not sure why FUTO seems to think the same reasons why the "Open Source" trademark was rejected won't apply just as much to the term "Source First" (but they do seem to think that: "we will be making our own term and trademarking it.")

[-] LordWiggle@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

But they do provide a good alternative for watching videos on multiple platforms without ads, without subscriptions or anything. And the app works if you don't pay as well. Just because they ask money for their hard work while at the same time allowing the community to work with it sounds all good to me. It's just not completely open source and completely free. But feel free to make a non-profit true open source counterpart if you like :)

[-] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 0 points 6 months ago

My take: OSI needs to include noncommercial licenses. Companies like Mongo and Redis have to end up creating their own licenses with GPL poison pills just to survive commercial use, why not create a system where companies that want to be, and support, an "open source" ecosystem can thrive?

Open Source existed before OSI.

[-] airglow@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Proprietary source-available software existed before open source software, and that's what these restricted licenses are. The FOSS community does not appreciate businesses co-opting the term open source to promote software that doesn't grant users the right to use the source code for any purpose.

[-] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 0 points 6 months ago

As a member of the FOSS community, and someone who has written an absolute truckload of FOSS software, I stand by what I said.

Open Source was coined before OSI was formed. OSI, and the previous launch of GNU by Stallman, was to combat the new (at the time) practice of only releasing machine code and the commercial vehicles that came along with it.

The original spirit of sharing source code for projects in academia, before software required so much more effort, still exists in licenses like SSPLv1, etc, that are not adopted by OSI.

I, personally, think this is a bad decision.

I, personally, feel that an organization that wishes to make their products source-available, especially those that allow noncommercial modification, should be recognized for that, not punished or gate kept.

I, personally, would love to see OSI adopt an open attitude towards those types of organizations, and create another official tier in the lexicon with it's own set of standard licenses that fit under it.

I understand and accept that other's don't feel that way, but that does not make their opinion about what should count as "open" any better than my own, just more widely accepted at the time.

[-] zerozaku@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Why can't they be a website than an app for Dekstop?

Also understood that they're not open-source but are they privacy-respecting?

Edit: Went through their privacy policy and seems they're privacy-focused. I will be trying their app now.

[-] timestatic@feddit.org 1 points 6 months ago

Personally I've been using FreeTube for accessing YouTube as they are FOSS. Only thing I wish they would have a feature to share like subs with Tubular and watch history somehow. It doesn't have all the platforms Grayjay has but for just YouTube its pretty great

[-] hal_5700X@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

It's an alpha release, so expect it to be buggy. Overall this is a good thing. We need more frontends.

[-] oldfart@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

That zip file is just one command away from an appimage

[-] MITM0@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

We sorely need a Truely FOSS/Libre Alternative to GrayJay (Preferably under an AGPL Licence) So to get the ball rolling, What does GrayJay have that FOSS alternatives like let's say NewPipe doesn't ??

[-] el_abuelo@programming.dev 1 points 6 months ago

Honestly the mobile app doesn't work for such long periods of time that I've all but given up and gone back to YouTube.

If anyone knows an app to replace YouTube that is actually reliable then let me know! I'm in the market.

[-] Sunny@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 months ago

What do you mean it doesnt work for longer periods of time? Been flawless for me ever since I started using it.

[-] EngineerGaming@feddit.nl 1 points 6 months ago

I'm on Newpipe, it only rarely stopped working like this.

[-] QuantumSoul@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 6 months ago

I am working on an alternative

[-] Sunny@slrpnk.net 0 points 6 months ago
[-] QuantumSoul@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Cannot release yet because I need to "plugin out" the youtube part which was integrated directly into the flutter app in my earlier builds, will be open source

[-] MITM0@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Can we at least get a link to your Repository ?

this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2024
11 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

72444 readers
1156 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS