4 ms·
My understanding is that Vanced was a patching of the official Youtube App, so already on somewhat shaky ground. If Vanced took advantage of vulnerabilities in
by Shared404 5y ago
My understanding is that Vanced was a patching of the official Youtube App, so already on somewhat shaky ground.
If Vanced took advantage of vulnerabilities in the Youtube App, or the source code could point to them, I could see Google reacting poorly to start out with - though afaik (not a lawyer, also not your lawyer) it's legal to distribute source for a patch for a proprietary program and instructions to apply it.
- kadoban 5y agoI'm not a lawyer either, but: I'd worry that something Vanced was doing was technically in violation of DMCA, or at least could be argued to be in violation by someone with several billion dollars.
- Anunayj 5y agoIANAL, but I do not think patching a app violates any copyright at all, as long as you distribute the patches and download the app clientside. A very good example of this would be Bukkit (which itself is licensed under GPL) , which patches Minecraft Server JARs to provide a stable modding API to work it. Infact the story itself has quite a interesting turn, so it turned out sometime later Mojang decided to "buy" Bukkit. (aka pay it's lead developers to give up their copyright), and what they (incorrectly) supposed from this was, that they would be allowed to distribute direct bukkit binaries (afterall they own minecraft), that was until one of the Bukkit contributers decided to DMCA the website. I'm unsure what the current situation around this is, and how they sorted everything out in the end. [1] https://twitter.com/jeb_/status/502380018216206336 https://twitter.com/jeb_/status/502380018216206336