Google disrupted YouTube video playback on Firefox, again - gHacks Tech News
Google disrupted YouTube video playback on Firefox, again - gHacks Tech News
Mozilla has fixed a playback issue on YouTube that affected some Firefox users for several months.
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.
You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
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 and distribute them. 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
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."
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.
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 the correct and most widely recognised. Its not that I like the definition, it's that it is the primary definition and always has been.
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.
No, it's the definition the Open Source Initiative has used since their inception.
Which.. split off from the FSF and the software freedom movement. And that term was never used before they created it. They literally defined it and started it's use.
They are just one of many open source communities with their own licenses.
Again, established definition. Stop trying to legitimise your self-concocted definition of "open source".
Stop being a meme of yourself lol
I see you have nothing else to say so jumped to ad hominem instead.