6 ms·

Open source app to watch videos from any platform

58 points by ImHereToVote 3y ago

tagawa 3y ago
Looks like you need to create an account to be able to read the documentation: https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/documents/-/wikis/API-Overview https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/documents/-/wikis/API... Any chance of making it publicly viewable?
- silviot 3y ago
  It is now public, but slow. Probably hugged to death.
ImHereToVote 3y ago
Introduction to the app: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DePDzfyWkw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DePDzfyWkw
judiisis 3y ago
Don't claim it is "open source " when it is not, it is just another non-free paid source available software https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master...
- ben-schaaf 3y ago
  This seems to be an issue purely with the title on HN? I haven't been able to find any references to futo themselves calling it open source.
  - judiisis 3y ago
    In this YouTube video, https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=hkAalkXqA5HGp97c https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=hkAalkXqA5HGp97c Louis rossmann(FUTO's paid employee) claimed that it is open source(when it's clearly not)
    - silviot 3y ago
      I think you misspelled his name. It also doesn't sound like you listened to what he had to say about the license. I suggest you do.
      - _cenw 3y ago
        It's not open source by the most common definition provided by OSI. It's source-available at best.
  - ImHereToVote 3y ago
    Sorry. Didn't mean anything malicious by it.
    - judiisis 3y ago
      I know,not your fault, you were probably misled by Louis Grossman 's youtube video https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw
- imiric 3y ago
  I find it curious that in the open source community we emphasize that the software is "free as in speech", yet if someone puts the source behind a paywall suddenly the "free as in beer" point becomes more important, and we argue that it's not _libre_ anymore. I'm a firm believer in the benefits of the rights granted by F/LOSS, but think that we should normalize paying for both binaries and source code. Monetizing OSS is hard enough, and developers should have more ways of getting paid to write OSS, not less. Giving the software and source code away _gratis_ can be unsustainable, and introduce perverse incentives that ultimately harm the user.
  - judiisis 3y ago
    The issue is not about "paid", OSS can be paid, but it doesn't meet other freedoms of the Open Source Definition https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
    - imiric 3y ago
      You mentioned "non-free paid" in your original comment, so it is an issue. That official definition is problematic because it uses libre/gratis interchangeably, and in some cases actually requires the software to be given away gratis ("for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge"). I'm not able to see the license of Grayjay, but assuming it allows libre distribution and modification, it would still grant the user the most important freedoms of the strict OSS definition. I find it counterproductive that the official definition even mentions software cost, which has nothing to do with the actual freedoms that benefit the user, and in turn harms the development of OSS.
      - iopq 3y ago
        I believe only the source has to be given away for free. Which it is The problem with that definition is it allows commercial distribution of said software, which futo's license prohibits on purpose since you could bundle the futo software with ads and call it your own software. The futo license prohibits commercial distribution of its software by others
- silviot 3y ago
  The authors have this to say about it: > The issue with the non-standard license for the application stems from problems that arose with NewPipe, an open-source media player. When a video recommended downloading NewPipe, many people mistakenly downloaded a malware-ridden version from the Play Store. This fake version was loaded with ads and sometimes even required payment. The crux of the problem is that people were forking NewPipe, adding ads and trackers, and then asking for money on the Play Store. To prevent this kind of exploitation and deceit, the developers of the application in question opted for a less permissive license. This allows them to retain the right to take action against anyone who forks their application and tries to monetize it through deceptive means. They are committed to an ad-free, non-tracking application and don't want to engage in a business model where the user becomes the product. Source: https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=ivUrdDTwrhqUdt37&t=613 https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=ivUrdDTwrhqUdt37&t=613
  - theK 3y ago
    Interesting approach, hopefully it works out because the problem they are addressing is an important one IMO. If the creators are still aligned with the open source ethos maybe it would help outlining what they consider a fair use fork. EDIT: typos
  - _cenw 3y ago
    Isn't the solution to this more generally to trademark your name, not to change your license to something less permissive?
  - prmoustache 3y ago
    Doesn't make it open source. And as someone commented before me, trademarks can take care of this without using a proprietary license.
  - 2Gkashmiri 3y ago
    you can use Mozilla public license and still do that. you can do that with AGPL no problem.
    - 3y ago
- unixfox 3y ago
  https://archive.ph/2SlTq https://archive.ph/2SlTq
silviot 3y ago
I just clicked on a video link in this thread (so I know nothing about this app), but came here to mention that the fact that Luis Rossman is behind this plays a big role for me. I have a lot of trust in that guy. I think others might share the feeling.
- safety1st 3y ago
  I've never heard of him and I'm curious to learn more but two big problems. One, it seems his Gitlab instance has received the HN hug of death and couldn't handle it. Two, it seems he is trash talking open source software and using that to justify his own proprietary monopoly software. Ironically one of the great things about open source licenses is that when a guy can't keep his website online we can fork it and someone more competent can become the maintainer of the project. Of course Louis Rossman wouldn't profit from that. So from what I am seeing so far I am thinking fuck this guy. The GPL, similar licenses, and user freedom are all way more important than him, whoever he is. Huge negative marks to this guy for attacking free software. We have seen a long string of these exploitative software vendors come and go. He seems to be establishing that he's just another one of the vendors who wants to exploit his users.
  - silviot 3y ago
    > Two, it seems he is trash talking open source software and using that to justify his own proprietary monopoly software. I'm sorry, but I really don't see this in any possible way. Can you help me understand? What did he say that you consider "trash talking open source software"? The reason I like him is that he's been fighting Apple anti-repair policies for years.
    - safety1st 3y ago
      I admit it's a hot take because I couldn't actually load the site. However I read this and watched the relevant portion of his video: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37925589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37925589 The problem here is that he's attacking the general case of free software licenses - OK I get it that some people downloaded a malicious fork of Newpipe and that sucks. But that's not a reason to abandon free/open/copyleft licensing of software, which is essentially the case he's making. At the end of the day this is a guy who has a large audience and has decided to attack open source licensing. I get that he may be a good guy and do other things that are good but that is a serious problem.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cocoa19 3y ago
How will this project avoid being sued to death by platforms? I’ve thought of starting a similar project for paid tv/movie streaming services, but got discouraged since a lawsuit can erase thousands of hours poured into the project.
- antoniojtorres 3y ago
  Agreed. I wish there was a mixture of legal portability / universality that allowed platforms to still monetize the content they host while allowing others to choose how they consume content. Not a fan of the consolidation of walled gardens.
- joshspankit 3y ago
  Given their commitment I think they are great people to take on the inevitable lawsuits but I think they face a more immediate threat: simply being blocked from accessing the APIs. The internet has seen this play out many many (many) times before.
svag 3y ago
Here is another link to the actual product and not source code, https://grayjay.app/ https://grayjay.app/
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
theshrike79 3y ago
The site is 100% hugged to death :D
svag 3y ago
Checking at the https://futo.org/ https://futo.org/, there is a number of other projects worth checking * [Circles](https://circu.li/ https://circu.li/): A private photo sharing feed for families. * [FUTO Voice](https://github.com/abb128/LiveCaptions https://github.com/abb128/LiveCaptions): A voice input app for Android that respects your privacy. * [Polycentric](https://docs.polycentric.io/ https://docs.polycentric.io/): A distributed text-based social network centered around communities. * [Live Captions](https://github.com/abb128/LiveCaptions https://github.com/abb128/LiveCaptions): Accessible live captions that are completely private. It seems that Live Captions are the same with FUTO Voice.
- bestouff 3y ago
  Hey, your "FUTO Voice" link goes to "Live Captions" ! It should point to https://voiceinput.futo.org/ https://voiceinput.futo.org/
smashah 3y ago
If there is a consortium which is ready to protect this project from legal threats (C&Ds) from platforms based on their overreaching TOS then please share it as many OSS maintainers out there are stuck in legal purgatory who need help and dont have the same backing that futo does. Us C&D'ed maintainers have the context to help this kind of app potentially win legal battles but in exchange we want to get back to work without fear! If you care about OSS maintainers being protected from billion dollar bullying anticompetitive megacorps then please reach out.
- SXX 3y ago
  This app we discussing is no free or open source. No reason to help them with legal defence. Or to donate to them.
ranguna 3y ago
The arm v8 android package is around 180 MB in size, when did apps get so big?
perryizgr8 3y ago
Ironic that they remove ads (going against Youtube's policy/copyright) but themselves rely on the copyright system to prevent others from using their code.
SXX 3y ago
Too bad to see Louis Rossmann of all people selling this source available software as open source. He spend years proving to his audience how Apple bullshiting their users by not providing hardware documentation for "user security" and "safety". And now he pushing commercial source-available software to "protect users freedoms". Problems he brought with NewPipe can all be solved by copyrighting the logo and registering trademark for software name itself. No need for BS source available licensing.
hayrhotoca 3y ago
Awesome! Does it help removes all ads?
IYasha 3y ago
I was literally waiting for this to pop up on HN :) Congratulations to developers and all freedom-respecting people around the world! I'm checking it out now.
_cenw 3y ago
One big problem is that Odysee and Rumble don't primarily attract people because they're somehow better than YouTube - it attracts them because YouTube - often rightfully - bans them. Their front pages become right wing propaganda outlets - Odysee has somewhat cut down on it, but I still see Dave Cullen and a "woke triggered cringe compilation" when I scroll a little. Rumble is a full page ad for Steven Crowder - but then again, that's the same company that hosts trumps truth social. It's also really telling this app doesn't support any self-hosting solutions.

58 points by ImHereToVote 3y ago

Looks like you need to create an account to be able to read the documentation: https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/documents/-/wikis/API-Overview https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/documents/-/wikis/API... Any chance of making it publicly viewable?

silviot 3y ago
It is now public, but slow. Probably hugged to death.

ImHereToVote 3y ago

Introduction to the app: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DePDzfyWkw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DePDzfyWkw

judiisis 3y ago

Don't claim it is "open source " when it is not, it is just another non-free paid source available software https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master/LICENSE https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master...

ben-schaaf 3y ago
This seems to be an issue purely with the title on HN? I haven't been able to find any references to futo themselves calling it open source.
- judiisis 3y ago
  In this YouTube video, https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=hkAalkXqA5HGp97c https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=hkAalkXqA5HGp97c Louis rossmann(FUTO's paid employee) claimed that it is open source(when it's clearly not)
  - silviot 3y ago
    I think you misspelled his name. It also doesn't sound like you listened to what he had to say about the license. I suggest you do.
    - _cenw 3y ago
      It's not open source by the most common definition provided by OSI. It's source-available at best.
- ImHereToVote 3y ago
  Sorry. Didn't mean anything malicious by it.
  - judiisis 3y ago
    I know,not your fault, you were probably misled by Louis Grossman 's youtube video https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw
imiric 3y ago
I find it curious that in the open source community we emphasize that the software is "free as in speech", yet if someone puts the source behind a paywall suddenly the "free as in beer" point becomes more important, and we argue that it's not _libre_ anymore. I'm a firm believer in the benefits of the rights granted by F/LOSS, but think that we should normalize paying for both binaries and source code. Monetizing OSS is hard enough, and developers should have more ways of getting paid to write OSS, not less. Giving the software and source code away _gratis_ can be unsustainable, and introduce perverse incentives that ultimately harm the user.
- judiisis 3y ago
  The issue is not about "paid", OSS can be paid, but it doesn't meet other freedoms of the Open Source Definition https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
  - imiric 3y ago
    You mentioned "non-free paid" in your original comment, so it is an issue. That official definition is problematic because it uses libre/gratis interchangeably, and in some cases actually requires the software to be given away gratis ("for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge"). I'm not able to see the license of Grayjay, but assuming it allows libre distribution and modification, it would still grant the user the most important freedoms of the strict OSS definition. I find it counterproductive that the official definition even mentions software cost, which has nothing to do with the actual freedoms that benefit the user, and in turn harms the development of OSS.
    - iopq 3y ago
      I believe only the source has to be given away for free. Which it is The problem with that definition is it allows commercial distribution of said software, which futo's license prohibits on purpose since you could bundle the futo software with ads and call it your own software. The futo license prohibits commercial distribution of its software by others
silviot 3y ago
The authors have this to say about it: > The issue with the non-standard license for the application stems from problems that arose with NewPipe, an open-source media player. When a video recommended downloading NewPipe, many people mistakenly downloaded a malware-ridden version from the Play Store. This fake version was loaded with ads and sometimes even required payment. The crux of the problem is that people were forking NewPipe, adding ads and trackers, and then asking for money on the Play Store. To prevent this kind of exploitation and deceit, the developers of the application in question opted for a less permissive license. This allows them to retain the right to take action against anyone who forks their application and tries to monetize it through deceptive means. They are committed to an ad-free, non-tracking application and don't want to engage in a business model where the user becomes the product. Source: https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=ivUrdDTwrhqUdt37&t=613 https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=ivUrdDTwrhqUdt37&t=613
- theK 3y ago
  Interesting approach, hopefully it works out because the problem they are addressing is an important one IMO. If the creators are still aligned with the open source ethos maybe it would help outlining what they consider a fair use fork. EDIT: typos
- _cenw 3y ago
  Isn't the solution to this more generally to trademark your name, not to change your license to something less permissive?
- prmoustache 3y ago
  Doesn't make it open source. And as someone commented before me, trademarks can take care of this without using a proprietary license.
- 2Gkashmiri 3y ago
  you can use Mozilla public license and still do that. you can do that with AGPL no problem.
  - 3y ago
unixfox 3y ago
https://archive.ph/2SlTq https://archive.ph/2SlTq

silviot 3y ago

I just clicked on a video link in this thread (so I know nothing about this app), but came here to mention that the fact that Luis Rossman is behind this plays a big role for me. I have a lot of trust in that guy. I think others might share the feeling.

safety1st 3y ago
I've never heard of him and I'm curious to learn more but two big problems. One, it seems his Gitlab instance has received the HN hug of death and couldn't handle it. Two, it seems he is trash talking open source software and using that to justify his own proprietary monopoly software. Ironically one of the great things about open source licenses is that when a guy can't keep his website online we can fork it and someone more competent can become the maintainer of the project. Of course Louis Rossman wouldn't profit from that. So from what I am seeing so far I am thinking fuck this guy. The GPL, similar licenses, and user freedom are all way more important than him, whoever he is. Huge negative marks to this guy for attacking free software. We have seen a long string of these exploitative software vendors come and go. He seems to be establishing that he's just another one of the vendors who wants to exploit his users.
- silviot 3y ago
  > Two, it seems he is trash talking open source software and using that to justify his own proprietary monopoly software. I'm sorry, but I really don't see this in any possible way. Can you help me understand? What did he say that you consider "trash talking open source software"? The reason I like him is that he's been fighting Apple anti-repair policies for years.
  - safety1st 3y ago
    I admit it's a hot take because I couldn't actually load the site. However I read this and watched the relevant portion of his video: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37925589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37925589 The problem here is that he's attacking the general case of free software licenses - OK I get it that some people downloaded a malicious fork of Newpipe and that sucks. But that's not a reason to abandon free/open/copyleft licensing of software, which is essentially the case he's making. At the end of the day this is a guy who has a large audience and has decided to attack open source licensing. I get that he may be a good guy and do other things that are good but that is a serious problem.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cocoa19 3y ago

How will this project avoid being sued to death by platforms? I’ve thought of starting a similar project for paid tv/movie streaming services, but got discouraged since a lawsuit can erase thousands of hours poured into the project.

antoniojtorres 3y ago
Agreed. I wish there was a mixture of legal portability / universality that allowed platforms to still monetize the content they host while allowing others to choose how they consume content. Not a fan of the consolidation of walled gardens.
joshspankit 3y ago
Given their commitment I think they are great people to take on the inevitable lawsuits but I think they face a more immediate threat: simply being blocked from accessing the APIs. The internet has seen this play out many many (many) times before.

svag 3y ago

Here is another link to the actual product and not source code, https://grayjay.app/ https://grayjay.app/

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

theshrike79 3y ago

The site is 100% hugged to death :D

svag 3y ago

Checking at the https://futo.org/ https://futo.org/, there is a number of other projects worth checking * [Circles](https://circu.li/ https://circu.li/): A private photo sharing feed for families. * [FUTO Voice](https://github.com/abb128/LiveCaptions https://github.com/abb128/LiveCaptions): A voice input app for Android that respects your privacy. * [Polycentric](https://docs.polycentric.io/ https://docs.polycentric.io/): A distributed text-based social network centered around communities. * [Live Captions](https://github.com/abb128/LiveCaptions https://github.com/abb128/LiveCaptions): Accessible live captions that are completely private. It seems that Live Captions are the same with FUTO Voice.

bestouff 3y ago
Hey, your "FUTO Voice" link goes to "Live Captions" ! It should point to https://voiceinput.futo.org/ https://voiceinput.futo.org/

smashah 3y ago

If there is a consortium which is ready to protect this project from legal threats (C&Ds) from platforms based on their overreaching TOS then please share it as many OSS maintainers out there are stuck in legal purgatory who need help and dont have the same backing that futo does. Us C&D'ed maintainers have the context to help this kind of app potentially win legal battles but in exchange we want to get back to work without fear! If you care about OSS maintainers being protected from billion dollar bullying anticompetitive megacorps then please reach out.

SXX 3y ago
This app we discussing is no free or open source. No reason to help them with legal defence. Or to donate to them.

ranguna 3y ago

The arm v8 android package is around 180 MB in size, when did apps get so big?

perryizgr8 3y ago

Ironic that they remove ads (going against Youtube's policy/copyright) but themselves rely on the copyright system to prevent others from using their code.

SXX 3y ago

Too bad to see Louis Rossmann of all people selling this source available software as open source. He spend years proving to his audience how Apple bullshiting their users by not providing hardware documentation for "user security" and "safety". And now he pushing commercial source-available software to "protect users freedoms". Problems he brought with NewPipe can all be solved by copyrighting the logo and registering trademark for software name itself. No need for BS source available licensing.

hayrhotoca 3y ago

Awesome! Does it help removes all ads?

IYasha 3y ago

I was literally waiting for this to pop up on HN :) Congratulations to developers and all freedom-respecting people around the world! I'm checking it out now.

_cenw 3y ago

One big problem is that Odysee and Rumble don't primarily attract people because they're somehow better than YouTube - it attracts them because YouTube - often rightfully - bans them. Their front pages become right wing propaganda outlets - Odysee has somewhat cut down on it, but I still see Dave Cullen and a "woke triggered cringe compilation" when I scroll a little. Rumble is a full page ad for Steven Crowder - but then again, that's the same company that hosts trumps truth social. It's also really telling this app doesn't support any self-hosting solutions.