• KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Didn’t watch the video?

    Individuals are free to do whatever, but you’re not allowed to redistribute with a bunch of shit tacked on.

    • sir_reginald@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      that’s effectively taking away your freedoms. If there can’t exist community forks that can maintain the app if the original dev cease development or decides to add anti features, then you’re being restricted.

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you’re free to upload work you didn’t do, with malicious changes meant to make money, that you can promote above the original, you’re freedoms should be smacked.

        • smileyhead
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          From when taking someone’s work, improving it and then selling became unacceptable?

          In physical world we did not expect IKEA to grow their own trees. In science world we do not expect mathematican to reinvent whole math every time doing something.

          People selling or giving away some software and expecting they still should have control over copies they sold are just doing harm. It’s 2023 and some still cannot accept the fact that digital copying exists. Get over it and make money on doing new work, not creating artifical licence to force numbers into being a scaresity.

            • smileyhead
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No, I consider trying to remain control over software even after selling it an unacceptable attempt, because of the consequences it makes to what it means to have a copy of some software.

              Blocking modified versions with bad things added is in my opinion is not enough reason to turn code from freely usable math into a controlled product.

              That’s because having a choice between ad version from random guy and adfree version from origin creator, noone is going to choose the mod. And if Louis want to prevent situations like with NewPipe, there is a thing just for that: trademarks.

              • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                a) You’re not paying for code, you’re paying for access to the app… kinda. You can fork it and kill off the part which controls access making it free.

                b) This isn’t an open source app, just like many of the applications out there. Complaining that it’s more open but not fully open is weird. Especially when it’s being made clear that as an individual user you can do whatever you want with it, as long as it’s not release a malicious version publicly.

                c) Trademarking doesn’t prevent anything from the newpipe situation. Have you looked at app stores? They are full of fully trademarked names being used on unofficial apps. Because trademark means literally nothing on [insert appstore here].