[rakoo]

Vanced was proprietary, it's too bad for users but I won't shed a tear for its developers and would actually advise against doing anything that keeps it living. The very fact that there is a need to get apk archives before the links die is an artifact of being proprietary and would not have been an issue with Libre Software.

The only way that makes sense for all of us as a democratic society is to keep control, and this can only be achieved through Libre Software. The real move right now is not to keep existing Vanced content on life support, but to use Newpipe. If it doesn't support the right features, fork it. Enhance it. Use it as the Common it is

[MathCodeLove]

I don't get this argument against proprietary software. People building software should be able to expect payment for their work and effort.

Food is required for a healthy society but would anyone here advocate for farmers to give away all of their produce for free?

Text-tiles are necessary for society but would you advocate that clothing be provided by the creators free of charge?

The only thing different about software is that little to no physical resources are required as a prerequisite to its production, but an individuals time and energy is.

A world in which no one was paid to write software would be a world with much worse offerings than what we currently have and would be a net loss for humanity.

[kazinator]

> People building software should be able to expect payment for their work and effort.

But, but, ... Vanced is free-as-in-beer software that prevents Google getting ad revenue for their product/service.

[xvector]

Google is not losing any appreciable amount of money to Vanced.

[wiseowise]

And that justifies its existence?

[margalabargala]

You seem to be under the impression that permissively licensed software is unable to be sold, nor developers financially compensated. This is not the case.

There are plenty of successful software companies whose offerings are not proprietary, yet manage to pay their developers well. Example products:

- MongoDB

- Red Hat

- Docker

- Elastic Search

- Vagrant

[josephcsible]

I agree with your point, but you picked stunningly bad examples. MongoDB and ElasticSearch are both fauxpen source, and Vagrant and Docker are both open core. The only one on your list that's really open source is Red Hat. Better examples would be Nextcloud and Grafana.

[margalabargala]

I agree the SSPL means Mongo and Elastic are not free software, but they are open source, and I would not consider them proprietary.

[josephcsible]

The SSPL is not open source: https://opensource.org/node/1099

[margalabargala]

You're right, sorry, I should have said source available.

[langsoul-com]

Mongodb, Docker and elastic search are not good examples.

Their software was ripped and resold by a billion dollar corps and they could do nothing about it.

[ThatPlayer]

I think MongoDB and Elasticsearch should be examples of the opposite if anything. They tried to do the whole FOSS thing, but now both use "Server Side Public License", which is generally regarded as source-available, but not open source because of its restrictions.

https://opensource.org/node/1099

[chockchocschoir]

> Their software was ripped and resold by a billion dollar corps and they could do nothing about it.

Yet, they still are able to employ people and give them a fair wage, making them good examples.

[margalabargala]

They pay their employees well, though- the parent I replied to was implying one could not be paid well while writing software which is given away "for free". This is clearly not the case.

[makeitdouble]

I don't know for MongoDB and Vagrant, but Docker and Elastic Search seem to me to be painted into a corner because of the non proprietary part of their business.

Seeing them succeed up to that point is already an incredible feat, and perhaps they will find a way to turn around with a bright future ahead, but at this point I wouldn't give them as clear examples of success of the business model.

Red Hat is IBM, so I'm not sure it fits in the list.

[Raineer]

Open-source has nothing to do with preventing people from making money. This is like a Microsoft argument from the 90s.

[Mindwipe]

> I don't get this argument against proprietary software. People building software should be able to expect payment for their work and effort.

Vanced is literally a cracked version of Google's software though, to remove all the revenue checks.

[tjader]

I think a more apt comparison would be requiring farmers to make their farming techniques public, not giving away the food they farmed.

[rocqua]

Sadly it's easier to copy an app than it is to copy a potato.

[wiseowise]

As if you can't make money off a libre software.

[rakoo]

Just to understand where I'm coming from, I'm actually a proponent of all production being socialized so that people do not need to spend their life working just to live. Farmers would give their produce for free because all their needs would be met for free. But that's another debate.

Libre Software can totally be funded, through individual donations or through public funding; in fact, because Libre Software is a common, it is only normal that time spent improving them should be time paid by the entire society. I see no problem with the idea of taking from private property to further common property.

[MathCodeLove]

I've heard people who have similar beliefs to yours and IME they've never been able to rationalize what their society would actually look like and how we could maintain the same quality of life as we have today.

Given that HN is a higher quality social media platform than most, maybe today that can change. Would you mind answering a few questions:

1. Who does the hard/dirty jobs in this society? Farming being one. But also construction, sewage, trash, ad inifitum. There are a lot of undesirable jobs and while maybe some people would be willing, I doubt our needs could be met when the same individuals could just work an easier job for the same reward.

2. How are "needs" defined? Food, shelter, clothing. Then what? Electricity? Internet? Smartphones? Gaming consoles/PC's? Games to play on those? Music? Memory foam mattresses? Etc. If all of these aren't needs, then how would individuals with varying interests actually choose what they want to own?

3. What are the incentives to advance amd become highly skilled? Take doctors. Some are really passionate about what they do. Most may be a little passionate, but are mainly just intelligent people drawn by the money and prestige. Assuming medical school and university still exists, for what purpose would someone go through that pipeline when they could do something far easier?

[approxim8ion]

Regarding point 1, how is "the people who we force to" an acceptable answer to this? Because that's exactly what happens now. No one wants to work hard, dirty jobs, but there is a societal pressure upon them to, and enough inertia to maintain the status quo that keeps a majority of them where they are.

[MathCodeLove]

Lol are you joking? I would wager my life that not a single blue collar worker in America takes or remains in a job that they hate out of societal pressure to do so. Having grown up in am environment where my social group was almost nothing but manual laborers, the only pressure they felt was financial. The difference between them and say, a SWE was often to some extent baseline intelligence coupled in with lack existing accreditation in terms of degrees or certification, and lack of motivation, interest and or ability to obtain such.

The suggestions that we as a society should basically just bully a certain number of people into undesirable positions is egregious and almost worse than blatant authoritarianism. At least today the people working those jobs are usually compensated better than they would be in another obtainable position given their skills amd ability.

[approxim8ion]

Financial pressure is also societal.

I just feel like all this crying foul about authoritarianism is because people view certain roles, even the essential ones, as beneath them. If that mindset needs to be changed then I'm all for it. I don't deny that it will be hard, and I don't deny that I might be guilty of this myself.

[sreevisakh]

What is the reason for the cease and desist? Code license or use of content? If it's the latter, then NewPipe won't survive either. We really need an alternative to YouTube, not another frontend to this exploitative platform.

[EMIRELADERO]

Vanced didn't publish the letter, but I'd argue it was a code copyright issue. They applied patches to the original YouTube APK and then distributed it. If they had only distributed the patch diffs themselves and a tool to patch the user-provided YouTube app file, this wouldn't have happened.

[pure_simplicity]

Can we not still do this? Can someone reach out to the vanced team to discuss this?

[chii]

The diff patches would be considered derivative, since you cannot make it without knowing the original.

[rvbissell]

If I sold a transparency with nothing but a twirly mustache on it, sized & positioned so that it perfectly placed the mustache on the original Mona Lisa if placed within the frame, would that be a derivative work?

(Assume for this question that the Mona Lisa was currently protected by U.S. copyright.)

[lmm]

> If I sold a transparency with nothing but a twirly mustache on it, sized & positioned so that it perfectly placed the mustache on the original Mona Lisa if placed within the frame, would that be a derivative work?

To the extent that it's "based on" copyrightable expression in the Mona Lisa, yes. AIUI the key question is: would a viewer recognise the Mona Lisa from your transparency? And that would be a question of fact for the jury; personally guessing I'd say probably not from just the position of a mustache in a frame, probably yes if you included e.g. an outline of the pose. (In which case it might still be protected fair use, but it would be a derivative work, and you'd have to make that positive defence).

[notriddle]

This is almost exactly RiffTrax.

[EMIRELADERO]

Courts have interpreted derivative works to be so when at least some parts of it contain the original copyrighted work. If that test fails, the whole derivative work argument is null and void.

[kazinator]

Do you know of a precedent?

I wouldn't want to be the one with my neck on the line in court over this.

Consider that .torrent files also don't have the content, yet torrent sites which serve them and provide tracking for torrent clients are having to play cat and mouse with copyright holders.

[bitwize]

There have been court cases on this. In Galoob v. Nintendo, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Galoob did not infringe copyright by distributing a device (the Game Genie) that allowed users to modify copyrighted video games. The case established, at the time, that modifying a computer program or other copyrighted work for personal use was fair use.

That said, so much of what we knew about copyright and software in the 90s has been overturned by subsequent rulings or even statutes (like the DMCA) that if you wish to avoid being burned by copyright suits, you must retain an attorney knowledgeable in this area of law. (Which is true in any case.) As an example, look-and-feel copyrights are back on the table thanks to The Tetris Company LLC.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

IANAL, but this I don't think so; AIUI, the combined work is derivative, but patches are independent (at least where copyright is concerned).

[dartharva]

They had to keep it so, otherwise the exploits they used to modify the app would have been right in the open and countered immediately. They did keep its package manager open-source. It's the same with cracked Spotify builds, the famous xManager is open-source but the cracked builds it summons aren't.