long_chicken_boat @ long_chicken_boat @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

62

Joined

2 yr. ago

Security and Resources.

they are yet another attack surface for vulnerabilities. Modern browsers are super heavy on resources. I don't want to open a bloated browser to view a PDF, thanks.

PDFs in web browsers shouldn't be a thing.

you're right in almost everything

Seems clear cut and Meta will likely have to change the name.

Meta has a massive amount of resources, I'm sure they can afford more lawyers than the British company. Courts tend to favor the one with most resources, so the smaller company will have a very hard time trying to make Meta to change their app's name.

short answer: no

this is not open source. from their license:

Subject to the terms of this license, we grant you a non-transferable, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to access and use the code solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution.

note how this explicitly leaves out modification.

You may provide the code to anyone else and publish excerpts of it for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution, provided that when you do so you make any recipient of the code aware of the terms of this license, they must agree to be bound by the terms of this license and you must attribute the code to the provider

once again, they exclude modification of the code.

no forks can be made because they aren't allowed to modify the app in anyway.

Additionally, the termination clauses say that they can just terminate your rights to use the code if they feel like it, no other reason needed. This is a direct attack against open source.

by definition?

the Free Software Foundation, the ones that started the whole idea of sharing code as a philosophy of software, do not consider source available as free software or "open source".

It does not meet Eric S Raymond's definition, the one who invented the term "open source".

It does not meet the Open Source Initiative definition either.

Even Wikipedia gives the right definition of open source:

They grant the recipient the rights to use the software, examine the source code, modify it, and distribute the modifications.

So stop defending Rossmann and admit that the app is not open source.

Subject to the terms of this license, we grant you a non-transferable, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to access and use the code solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution.

note how this explicitly leaves out modification.

You may provide the code to anyone else and publish excerpts of it for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution, provided that when you do so you make any recipient of the code aware of the terms of this license, they must agree to be bound by the terms of this license and you must attribute the code to the provider

once again, they exclude modification of the code.

no forks can be made because they aren't allowed to modify the app in anyway.

Additionally, the termination clauses say that they can just terminate your rights to use the code if they feel like it, no other reason needed. This is a direct attack against open source.

I prefer to use Tor, but whatever makes you happy.

Client side code isn't the only way to track someone, but it's one of the options. And fingerprinting browsers using JavaScript is an extended practice.

Anyway, you're missing my point. My browser, my rules. I'll just block any script that annoys me.

they detect adblock by executing proprietary JavaScript code in my browser, using my CPU cycles. I paid for that CPU and I can choose what code gets executed and what not.

That JavaScript code is also privacy invasive and I'm not letting a mega corporation recollect information about myself. So yeah, I'll block whatever I want from my browser. And if that makes Google loose money, they are more than welcomed to look for a business model other than advertising.

Louis Rossmann can go to fuck himself and his source available app that he keeps calling open source.

Newpipe existed long before Grayjay and will probably be there when grayjay dies since Newpipe's license allows community forks. If the Newpipe team ceases development, others will take their place. If Rossmann ceases development, his app is left for dead

the web server? absolutely!

the arbitrary code they send to my browser? I must be able to choose what to execute in my device.

you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Apple's laptops sales are decreasing. And most Mac users can't tell the differences between Intel, the M chips, AMD or whatever. They just know that there's a pretty apple on the back of their laptop and that's why they buy it.

can we stop advertising this app already? it's not open source. people needs to stop licking Rossmann's ass.

right to repair is great, we can all agree in that. but when it comes to software, the guy can't stand the idea of people using his source as they please and he wrote a source available license and keeps calling it open source. as other comments have pointed out, it is not.

someone needs to make this in stable diffusion. a rat with elon's face gnawing on wires.

stop making off topic promotions of that flawed product

a privacy policy, as I said, is a "trust me, bro". they don't give any actual proof.

that by searching through a SearXNG instance in a .onion domain they have no idea of who I am and they can't associate it with any other of my searches, is a verifiable fact.

that Kagi isn't correlating search logs, isn't.

I'll trust verifiable facts over blind trust any day. and you should too.