227

Website with more details: https://grayjay.app/

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Oz0ne@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 1 year ago

Testing it out and it defaults to 720p30 (30fps I assume). When I switch it to 1080p60, video playback begins to freeze/lag. So, sticking with revamced for now.

[-] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 28 points 1 year ago

This seems to be a problem with every third-party YouTube client. NewPipe, LibreTube, and Piped all have the same issue for me. They desperately need better buffering logic. I suspect Google is doing something on their end to make this harder than it needs to be.

[-] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Didn't have an issue with NewPipe.

[-] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Newpipe is pretty slick, probably the best non revanced solution.

[-] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Been testing GrayJay since yesterday. It's also open source but a bit better since it supports subscriptions and more sources.

[-] deafboy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

As far as I remember, if the client does not say "hello" in a proper way, YT will limit the bandwidth to the point it's unwatchable. It sometimes affect NewPipe and Kodi.

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

There is a setting for the default quality for unmetered and metered connections.

[-] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Been running it at 1080p no problem for several days.

[-] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 28 points 1 year ago

I watched that earlier. Seems promising. I like that it's open source but restricted enough that they can (at least try to) shut down anyone who forks it specifically to add ads or trackers. And it must be getting some interest because I haven't been able to get the site to load yet.

[-] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 36 points 1 year ago

It isn't open source, the licence violates point six of the open source definition

[-] jet@hackertalks.com 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And violates point 1 The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. .... commercial distribution is forbidden in the license.

And violates point 3 The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

and violates point 4 Integrity of The Author’s Source Code no patch files are explicitly allowed_

and point 6 - you already covered

the futo license in question: https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/raw/master/LICENSE?ref_type=heads

[-] ayaya 26 points 1 year ago

This would definitely fall under the "source-available" category.

[-] MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

It's definitely FOSS. (Fake Open Source Software)

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] vector_zero@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

The source is available on their gitlab instance, so whether it not it conforms to some specific definition of open source, the source code is readily available for anyone to view and modify.

[-] twotone@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

modify

Nope, the license forbids that.

This is source available

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] thisfro@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 year ago

That is one definition of open source

I agree that it is great to meet all these criteria, but especially restricting commercial use is a pretty reasonable thing to do

[-] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I would say that Open Source, by any definition of the word, does have the assumption that you are allowed to modify and publish what you create at least in some form or another, even if it would be under a non-commercial clause or a license with other requirements.

When the licence explicitly says all you are allowed to do is access the code "solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution", that's not open source.

[-] thisfro@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

When the licence explicitly says all you are allowed to do is access the code "solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution", that's not open source.

I'd say that is open source. But not free and open source

[-] twotone@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

OSI's definition is the oldest and original definition. It's decades old at this point.

It's source available, nothing more.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 year ago

the site works fine for me.

The problem I encounter is, that loading the subscriptions from youtube triggered a crawler detection on youtubes side, and I currently can't load anything that is by YT. Bit annoying

[-] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago

the site works fine for me

Interesting. Must be my internet as I've tried on multiple machines and I get a timeout.

load more comments (18 replies)
[-] hummingbird@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

They video was quiet promising. However looking at the app website shows that what was a false promise. The app does track every single launch and sends that to their servers (see privacy policy) not legal without consent in the EU. Calling this "tracker free" is more than misleading here. I'd call it a lie actually.

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 12 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/watch?v=5DePDzfyWkw

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] Akasazh@feddit.nl 11 points 1 year ago

This send to be quite heavily marketed on here. So many threads on this app throughout my feed.

I dislike the use of a YouTube video over a web page, but that might just me being old fashioned

[-] WallEx@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah most apps are just webpages in a wrapper, so maybe they're going to do that.

It's even the same on desktop, like the discord, twitch or teams apps.

[-] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Most is maybe not the best word to use here. Many desktop apps are browser-based these days, but it's fairly uncommon in the mobile landscape.

[-] WallEx@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, most might be an overstatement, but uncommon is also not the reality, just did a quick Google search.

Webapps: Google Apps (Google Docs, Google Drive, Google Calender, etc.) Zoom Spotify YouTube Skype LinkedIn Amazon

Native apps: Instagram Ebay WhatsApp Blinkist McDonald’s App AirBnB TikTok

I don't really see a tendency there.

[-] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

None of those are web-based on mobile.

[-] WallEx@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
227 points (87.5% liked)

Technology

59532 readers
5187 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS