3 ms·

> Apparently Vanced was a patched YouTube app This is the part I missed in the original conversations. If you redistribute a modified version of a company’s a

> Apparently Vanced was a patched YouTube app This is the part I missed in the original conversations. If you redistribute a modified version of a company’s app, it’s going to be taken down. You can’t distribute another company’s work as your own. The difference here appears to be that it’s a patcher, so they’re not distributing the proprietary app. Theoretically more robust against takedowns, but it also significantly limits the audience of who can go through all of the steps to do it. I expect the real outcome is going to be a game of whack-a-mole as random people try to patch and distribute the app under different names. This isn’t actually a great situation because it sets an expectation among users that the app will always be changing names and distributors. Hackers love these situations because the door is now wide open for them to insert malicious code into a version and distribute it as the latest Revanced. Not good.

lewispollard 5y ago
Vanced didn't redistribute a modified version of the Youtube app, they distributed a "manager" app which downloaded the official app's APKs and applied the patches at runtime. (edit: actually, I'm not 100% sure of that, since I've always used a rooted version which does apply patches at runtime, but I'm unsure about non-rooted.) They were taken down for using a similar enough logo to Youtube that Google lawyered them into stopping that way, not for any kind of infringement in terms of software.
- Mogzol 5y ago
  > They were taken down for using a similar enough logo to Youtube that Google lawyered them into stopping that way, not for any kind of infringement in terms of software. Is there a source for this? Seems like they could have just changed the logo if that was the case, no?
  - 3np 5y ago
    It does seem that way but it is the official motivation from the creators. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30747352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30747352
mkdirp 5y ago
> I expect the real outcome is going to be a game of whack-a-mole as random people try to patch and distribute the app under different names. From their github org and an faq (I can't remember where I saw it), it seems they're planning on patching the YouTube app on your device, unlike what Vanced did. And yes, it will be a game of whack-a-mole but since you can download individual versions of apps and only update when you want, I believe breakage will be quite limited.

lewispollard 5y ago

Vanced didn't redistribute a modified version of the Youtube app, they distributed a "manager" app which downloaded the official app's APKs and applied the patches at runtime. (edit: actually, I'm not 100% sure of that, since I've always used a rooted version which does apply patches at runtime, but I'm unsure about non-rooted.) They were taken down for using a similar enough logo to Youtube that Google lawyered them into stopping that way, not for any kind of infringement in terms of software.

Mogzol 5y ago
> They were taken down for using a similar enough logo to Youtube that Google lawyered them into stopping that way, not for any kind of infringement in terms of software. Is there a source for this? Seems like they could have just changed the logo if that was the case, no?
- 3np 5y ago
  It does seem that way but it is the official motivation from the creators. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30747352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30747352

mkdirp 5y ago

> I expect the real outcome is going to be a game of whack-a-mole as random people try to patch and distribute the app under different names. From their github org and an faq (I can't remember where I saw it), it seems they're planning on patching the YouTube app on your device, unlike what Vanced did. And yes, it will be a game of whack-a-mole but since you can download individual versions of apps and only update when you want, I believe breakage will be quite limited.