7 ms·

I'd recommend Podlove instead, which is paid for by the European/German podcasting community instead of an advertising company: https://podlove.org/ https://pod

by luto 4y ago

I'd recommend Podlove instead, which is paid for by the European/German podcasting community instead of an advertising company: https://podlove.org/ https://podlove.org/

2Gkashmiri 4y ago
what do you mean, https://github.com/ad-aures/castopod https://github.com/ad-aures/castopod states the license as AGPL which is just as FOSS as any other project to the likes or mastodon or peertube. how does it matter there is an advertising company paying for the project as long as the code is open for scrutiny and is a FOSS project? the likes of amazon and amd and even adobe is funding blender so does that mean those projects are ruined by corporate money? https://fund.blender.org/ https://fund.blender.org/
- hunterb123 4y ago
  How do you feel about Google and Manifest v3 in Chromium? Being open source isn't everything, it's also about predicting the future development trajectory.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    Or we can let the enemy's own resources contribute to their demise. Let Google work on Chromium, but use the browsers that take the engine and do the things that are in our interests. Brave is not implementing v3.
    - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
      is brave going to maintain a fork of chromium for eternity?
      - rglullis 4y ago
        Eternity is a long time, but they have it been doing it for 5 years already.
    - _emacsomancer_ 4y ago
      Brave isn't implementing v3 immediately, but Chromium is their upstream and I haven't seen them claim they will be able to resist indefinitely. They have their own non-extension adblocker for which v3/no-v3 is irrelevant.
      - rglullis 4y ago
        https://twitter.com/brave/status/1574822799700541446 https://twitter.com/brave/status/1574822799700541446
        _emacsomancer_ 4y ago
        https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1534893414579249152 https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1534893414579249152
        hunterb123 4y ago
        GPs tweet is from a few days ago, the one you linked is from June and was speculation about what Google will do. Eich later in the thread you linked said this: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1534905779630661633 https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1534905779630661633
        _emacsomancer_ 4y ago
        The tweet you're referring to in the GP simply says "Brave will support Manifest V2 extensions such as uBlock Origin even after Chrome stops doing so". Which would be true statement even if that support only lasts for a day after Chrome stops supporting V2. That is to say, this does not look like a guarantee of indefinite support by any means, but rather extended support (for an undetermined amount of time).
        rglullis 4y ago
        Instead of getting attached to semantics, how about looking at it from the perspective of business and economics? If your business depends on the idea that Big Tech can not track you, you need to do whatever it takes to keep it a reality. The cost of supporting a fork of Chromium might be too much when you are starting out, but when you are already a company of 100+ employees and 60M+ MAU, it becomes acceptable. So, yes, if I had to guess with the information currently available, I'd say that Brave will keep away from v2 as long as it possible and as long ad the user base shows that this is what they want from their browser.
  - fetzu 4y ago
    To be fair, I think that what we are seeing happening to Chromium has little to do with it being open source and more with the fact that it has essentially become the de facto web browser. If google released an entirely rewritten and closed-source version of Chrome tomorrow, 95% of the people would not bat an eye and keep using it. Corporations contributing to FOSS have agenda, but so have individuals. Being open source isn’t everything, but it is a damn good start.
    - hunterb123 4y ago
      So GP would be justified in preferring the FOSS solution if it meets their technical requirements vs the commercial OSS solution because at one point they could be the only option and abuse that network effect / monopoly. My point was it's who is developing the software because it takes effort for another maintainer to step up and it doesn't always happen. Also if a commercial company digs a big enough moat with the open source product they could abuse it, so do you trust them now? Similar to Google abusing Chromium, Castopod could one day be in that position if you don't support FOSS alternatives today. That would be the mindset to put yourself in. That being said, I don't think it matters as much as the browser space, but I'm not in the podcast community. I could see though that it could potentially be very costly to have a monopoly for podcast hosting, but currently that's Spotify right? Note: I have no preference here, just assuming what motivates GP's preference.
      - fetzu 4y ago
        I think the first paragraph captures the core of the issue: which solution best meets their requirements. I don’t have a podcast (yet!), but it seems like the two projects don’t have the exact same feature set. Isn’t it the beauty of open source that you and I are able to take that project and make it “better”? That we are able to maintain it with our time and energy? The mindset of “FOSS or nothing” (FOSS in the sense of “not supported by corporate interests”) is noble but also a little bit naive. Nothing is free, and even the greatest FOSS projects rely on corporate and individual contributions (monetary or otherwise). I think that wholesale dismissing an (F)OSS product because it is backed by a commercial company is just showing them that the alternative (closed source software) is the more sensible choice. Chrome-imium did not become the default because it was open-source and no other better “FOSS” alternatives were available, it did because it has relentlessly been pushed to users on the single most visited webpage in the world for years. If you and I did not use Chrome (which we probably both don’t, I’ll allow to infer from your stance), Chrome would still be the de facto browser today. Is this better than another “strictly” FOSS browser being the de facto default? No. Is it better than a closed source browser (Netscape or IE) being the de facto browser? Definitely, at least we could/can fork it.
  - rakoo 4y ago
    Chromium is under a BSD license, explicitly allowing Google to build a proprietary product on top that siphoning all the users' data to make money off of it and influence where the http world goes. The product here is under a Copyleft license. Any derivative is at the service of humanity at large, today and tomorrow. It is much harder to exploit people this way. Open Source has never served the users, it has always been about the editors. A Copyleft license is a good way just like a public institution at the helm is.
    - deepstack 4y ago
      also the way google dumps code is also a factor, is it going to be repo where we can keep track of the whole development process, or just a code dump every once in a while.
    - ksala_ 4y ago
      Google could build a proprietary service on top of an AGPL Chromium. All they would have to do is either not accept external contributions (they already sponsor most if not all of the development anyway) or require contributions to sign a CLA to give them the copyright to it (they already require you to sign that anyway)
      - rakoo 4y ago
        AGPL explicitly prevents this: any service provided with AGPL software must be AGPL. That's the whole point of the license.
        tpush 4y ago
        The scenario the GP outlines is one where Google is the sole licensor of Chromium. They could then build proprietary (or whatever!) versions of that however they liked, since they'd have copyright to the whole thing.
        rakoo 4y ago
        If Chromium were AGPL they couldn't build a proprietary service. They couldn't even build a service that earns them money but can't be copy pasted as-is by anyone else such that it would earn money to someone else. That's the whole point. If one benefits, everyone benefits
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by luto 4y ago

I'd recommend Podlove instead, which is paid for by the European/German podcasting community instead of an advertising company: https://podlove.org/ https://podlove.org/

2Gkashmiri 4y ago

what do you mean, https://github.com/ad-aures/castopod https://github.com/ad-aures/castopod states the license as AGPL which is just as FOSS as any other project to the likes or mastodon or peertube. how does it matter there is an advertising company paying for the project as long as the code is open for scrutiny and is a FOSS project? the likes of amazon and amd and even adobe is funding blender so does that mean those projects are ruined by corporate money? https://fund.blender.org/ https://fund.blender.org/

hunterb123 4y ago
How do you feel about Google and Manifest v3 in Chromium? Being open source isn't everything, it's also about predicting the future development trajectory.
- rglullis 4y ago
  Or we can let the enemy's own resources contribute to their demise. Let Google work on Chromium, but use the browsers that take the engine and do the things that are in our interests. Brave is not implementing v3.
  - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
    is brave going to maintain a fork of chromium for eternity?
    - rglullis 4y ago
      Eternity is a long time, but they have it been doing it for 5 years already.
  - _emacsomancer_ 4y ago
    Brave isn't implementing v3 immediately, but Chromium is their upstream and I haven't seen them claim they will be able to resist indefinitely. They have their own non-extension adblocker for which v3/no-v3 is irrelevant.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      https://twitter.com/brave/status/1574822799700541446 https://twitter.com/brave/status/1574822799700541446
      - _emacsomancer_ 4y ago
        https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1534893414579249152 https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1534893414579249152
        hunterb123 4y ago
        GPs tweet is from a few days ago, the one you linked is from June and was speculation about what Google will do. Eich later in the thread you linked said this: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1534905779630661633 https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1534905779630661633
        _emacsomancer_ 4y ago
        The tweet you're referring to in the GP simply says "Brave will support Manifest V2 extensions such as uBlock Origin even after Chrome stops doing so". Which would be true statement even if that support only lasts for a day after Chrome stops supporting V2. That is to say, this does not look like a guarantee of indefinite support by any means, but rather extended support (for an undetermined amount of time).
        rglullis 4y ago
        Instead of getting attached to semantics, how about looking at it from the perspective of business and economics? If your business depends on the idea that Big Tech can not track you, you need to do whatever it takes to keep it a reality. The cost of supporting a fork of Chromium might be too much when you are starting out, but when you are already a company of 100+ employees and 60M+ MAU, it becomes acceptable. So, yes, if I had to guess with the information currently available, I'd say that Brave will keep away from v2 as long as it possible and as long ad the user base shows that this is what they want from their browser.
- fetzu 4y ago
  To be fair, I think that what we are seeing happening to Chromium has little to do with it being open source and more with the fact that it has essentially become the de facto web browser. If google released an entirely rewritten and closed-source version of Chrome tomorrow, 95% of the people would not bat an eye and keep using it. Corporations contributing to FOSS have agenda, but so have individuals. Being open source isn’t everything, but it is a damn good start.
  - hunterb123 4y ago
    So GP would be justified in preferring the FOSS solution if it meets their technical requirements vs the commercial OSS solution because at one point they could be the only option and abuse that network effect / monopoly. My point was it's who is developing the software because it takes effort for another maintainer to step up and it doesn't always happen. Also if a commercial company digs a big enough moat with the open source product they could abuse it, so do you trust them now? Similar to Google abusing Chromium, Castopod could one day be in that position if you don't support FOSS alternatives today. That would be the mindset to put yourself in. That being said, I don't think it matters as much as the browser space, but I'm not in the podcast community. I could see though that it could potentially be very costly to have a monopoly for podcast hosting, but currently that's Spotify right? Note: I have no preference here, just assuming what motivates GP's preference.
    - fetzu 4y ago
      I think the first paragraph captures the core of the issue: which solution best meets their requirements. I don’t have a podcast (yet!), but it seems like the two projects don’t have the exact same feature set. Isn’t it the beauty of open source that you and I are able to take that project and make it “better”? That we are able to maintain it with our time and energy? The mindset of “FOSS or nothing” (FOSS in the sense of “not supported by corporate interests”) is noble but also a little bit naive. Nothing is free, and even the greatest FOSS projects rely on corporate and individual contributions (monetary or otherwise). I think that wholesale dismissing an (F)OSS product because it is backed by a commercial company is just showing them that the alternative (closed source software) is the more sensible choice. Chrome-imium did not become the default because it was open-source and no other better “FOSS” alternatives were available, it did because it has relentlessly been pushed to users on the single most visited webpage in the world for years. If you and I did not use Chrome (which we probably both don’t, I’ll allow to infer from your stance), Chrome would still be the de facto browser today. Is this better than another “strictly” FOSS browser being the de facto default? No. Is it better than a closed source browser (Netscape or IE) being the de facto browser? Definitely, at least we could/can fork it.
- rakoo 4y ago
  Chromium is under a BSD license, explicitly allowing Google to build a proprietary product on top that siphoning all the users' data to make money off of it and influence where the http world goes. The product here is under a Copyleft license. Any derivative is at the service of humanity at large, today and tomorrow. It is much harder to exploit people this way. Open Source has never served the users, it has always been about the editors. A Copyleft license is a good way just like a public institution at the helm is.
  - deepstack 4y ago
    also the way google dumps code is also a factor, is it going to be repo where we can keep track of the whole development process, or just a code dump every once in a while.
  - ksala_ 4y ago
    Google could build a proprietary service on top of an AGPL Chromium. All they would have to do is either not accept external contributions (they already sponsor most if not all of the development anyway) or require contributions to sign a CLA to give them the copyright to it (they already require you to sign that anyway)
    - rakoo 4y ago
      AGPL explicitly prevents this: any service provided with AGPL software must be AGPL. That's the whole point of the license.
      - tpush 4y ago
        The scenario the GP outlines is one where Google is the sole licensor of Chromium. They could then build proprietary (or whatever!) versions of that however they liked, since they'd have copyright to the whole thing.
        rakoo 4y ago
        If Chromium were AGPL they couldn't build a proprietary service. They couldn't even build a service that earns them money but can't be copy pasted as-is by anyone else such that it would earn money to someone else. That's the whole point. If one benefits, everyone benefits

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]