Some Firefox users noticed playback issues on YouTube for several months. These affected high resolution videos only, from 1080p and up. To make matters worse, no clear pattern could be identified.

Some videos played fine, others would stop abruptly when they ran out of buffer.

    • Adanisi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 days ago

      NewPipe on Android.

      Fuck GrayJay, their marketing lies, and their nasty license.

      • parpol@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        What lies? And what’s wrong with the license? It is to prevent other companies from taking their source code to make applications that aren’t free.

        • Adanisi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 days ago

          Advertised as “open source”, violates several key parts of the open source definition. AKA false advertising. It’s really a “look but don’t touch” thing.

          And you do realise ANY copyleft license (GPL, etc) prevents the creation of nonfree applications using that code? Making the app proprietary (yes, GrayJay counts as proprietary) is completely unnecessary.

          I know Rossmann brought up NewPipe fakes on the Play Store as justification, but NewPipe is licensed under the GPL. These fakes were already illegal as per the terms of the GPL. His special restrictive license is no better than the GPL for preventing that. So all it really does is prevent legitimate uses of the code.

          • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 days ago

            If someone posts their source code publicly, it’s open source. It’s unreasonable to ask them to review and maintain every PR sent their way. If they want to work on it by themselves, that’s fine. If you want to fork it and make changes yourself, you can. Literally the only qualification for something to be open source is that the source is open.

            It’s also unreasonable to be upset if they tell you you’re not allowed to take their work and re-sell it for your own profit. That would be like saying that artists are in the wrong for being upset that all those AI companies used their work to train their bots without asking. “Why would they prevent the creation of nonfree applications that use their work?!” I assume that’s not your position, right?

            But as you said, NewPipe is also copyleft, and it seems like you don’t have a problem with that. So I don’t really understand what your issue is with Grayjay/FUTO. It’s reasonable to be concerned about where their funding comes from, but you haven’t mentioned that. You say they have “marketing lies”, but haven’t pointed to any.

            It’s perfectly fine for there to be multiple open source solutions to the same problem, and you’re allowed to have a favorite, but that doesn’t warrant dragging the others’ names through the mud for no reason.

            • Adanisi
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 days ago

              If someone posts their source code publicly, it’s open source.

              Uh, no. That’s called “source-available”. Terms have meanings. And from the day the words “open source” started being used, this definition is what defined them: https://opensource.org/osd

              You can’t just redefine an established term because it’s inconvenient to your argument.

              It’s unreasonable to ask them to review and maintain every PR

              Good thing being free/open source doesn’t require that, then? It basically just requires the users be free to make their own modifications freely and distribute them freely (and of course to use the program freely). No requirement for public development involvement at all, really. It’s standard practice but by no means necessary.

              If you want to fork it and make changes for yourself, you can

              They can terminate your license for any reason or no reason (stated in the license) making your fork in violation of copyright law :).

              In other words, they can take down your fork if they feel like it. Making the ability to fork useless.

              literally the only qualification for something to be open source …

              Again, terms have established meanings. See above.

              It’s also unreasonable to be upset if they tell you you’re not allowed to take their work and re-sell it for your own profit.

              I don’t see how this paragraph relates to my point at all. Is it about the NewPipe paid clones? Because they were illegal anyways (copyleft violation), no egregious license needed.

              But as you said, NewPipe is also copyleft, and it seems like you don’t have a problem with that. So I don’t really understand what your issue is with Grayjay/FUTO.

              What do you mean “also copyleft”? Are you implying the GrayJay license is copyleft? Because it absolutely isn’t. Again, established term, definition: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html

              You say they have “marketing lies”, but haven’t pointed to any.

              I was referring to Rossmann proudly proclaiming that GrayJay is open source in the announcement (?). The immediate aftermath was a gain in goodwill in the free software/open source communities (you can see this on Reddit threads in those communities upon initial announcement), until people dug into the license and found that its actually a proprietary license.

              And finally, here’s some particularly nasty parts of the license, which funilly enough you don’t ever see in free/open source licenses (because they’re horribly restrictive terms):

              “If you issue proceedings in any jurisdiction against the provider because you consider the provider has infringed copyright or any patent right in respect of the code (including any joinder or counterclaim), your license to the code is automatically terminated.”

              “We may suspend, terminate or vary the terms of this license and any access to the code at any time, without notice, for any reason or no reason, in respect of any licensee, group of licensees or all licensees including as may be applicable any sub-licensees.”

              • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 days ago

                You can’t just redefine an established term because it’s inconvenient to your argument.

                Agreed, which is why you can’t expect to enforce the definition you like on everyone. The only thing about “open source” that we agree on is that the “source” is “open”.

                I’m realizing you’re working with outdated information. Take a look at the license again, it’s been updated.

                • Adanisi
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 days ago

                  you can’t expect to enforce the definition you like on everyone

                  It is literally the definition which has been used since the term’s conception when the open source movement split off from the software freedom movement. It is a well established term with a well established meaning. Just because you don’t want to use that meaning doesn’t mean it isn’t correct and most widely recognised. Its not that I like the definition, it’s that it is the primary definition and always has been.

                  Taking the words “open” and “source” separately and interpreting them as you like and combining them is just changing well established meanings to suit yourself, when the whole term “open source” is already well defined.

                  it’s been updated

                  Okay the new one does seem a bit less egregious to be fair but still doesn’t fit the open source definition due to the restrictions on how you’re allowed to use it and redistribute it.

                  • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 days ago

                    It is literally the definition which has been used since the term’s conception when the open source movement split off from the software freedom movement

                    No, it’s the definition the Open Source Initiative has used since their inception. They are just one of many open source communities with their own licenses.

                    I think we’ll have to agree to disagree (which is my entire point). Cheers.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 days ago

      How can I use those while keeping my watch history automatically sync’d between devices?

      • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        Can’t speak for invidious, but grayjay’s youtube plugin has a “Provide Youtube Activity” option in it’s settings to keep history synced.