> The issue with the non-standard license for the application stems from problems that arose with NewPipe, an open-source media player. When a video recommended downloading NewPipe, many people mistakenly downloaded a malware-ridden version from the Play Store. This fake version was loaded with ads and sometimes even required payment. The crux of the problem is that people were forking NewPipe, adding ads and trackers, and then asking for money on the Play Store. To prevent this kind of exploitation and deceit, the developers of the application in question opted for a less permissive license. This allows them to retain the right to take action against anyone who forks their application and tries to monetize it through deceptive means. They are committed to an ad-free, non-tracking application and don't want to engage in a business model where the user becomes the product.
I agree, hiring law professionals with proven expertise in the relevant domains can be a valid (and costly) way to do get assurance.
As the parent hints that there are documented ways to do this sort if thing with open source licenses I would like to hear from them how this is done, just because you or I don't know it doesn't mean that somebody else hasn't found a bulletproof, court trsted way to do this.
I just clicked on a video link in this thread (so I know nothing about this app), but came here to mention that the fact that Luis Rossman is behind this plays a big role for me. I have a lot of trust in that guy. I think others might share the feeling.
I've never heard of him and I'm curious to learn more but two big problems. One, it seems his Gitlab instance has received the HN hug of death and couldn't handle it. Two, it seems he is trash talking open source software and using that to justify his own proprietary monopoly software.
Ironically one of the great things about open source licenses is that when a guy can't keep his website online we can fork it and someone more competent can become the maintainer of the project. Of course Louis Rossman wouldn't profit from that.
So from what I am seeing so far I am thinking fuck this guy. The GPL, similar licenses, and user freedom are all way more important than him, whoever he is. Huge negative marks to this guy for attacking free software. We have seen a long string of these exploitative software vendors come and go. He seems to be establishing that he's just another one of the vendors who wants to exploit his users.
> Two, it seems he is trash talking open source software and using that to justify his own proprietary monopoly software.
I'm sorry, but I really don't see this in any possible way. Can you help me understand? What did he say that you consider "trash talking open source software"?
The reason I like him is that he's been fighting Apple anti-repair policies for years.
The problem here is that he's attacking the general case of free software licenses - OK I get it that some people downloaded a malicious fork of Newpipe and that sucks. But that's not a reason to abandon free/open/copyleft licensing of software, which is essentially the case he's making. At the end of the day this is a guy who has a large audience and has decided to attack open source licensing. I get that he may be a good guy and do other things that are good but that is a serious problem.
He purposefully doesn't allow forks that add ads to the software, so it's less permissive than most open source licenses. But it does allow you to modify the source code for non-commercial use.
They parachute deliver blood, but they will use a different technique for consumers.
From their website:
> Lowering from the body of the Platform 2 Zip, this little droid uses onboard perception to leave packages exactly where they're supposed to go, whether that's a doorstep or patio table.
While that is true for Platform 2 drones, from reading this article [1] it seems the ruling currently only applies to Platform 1 drones (ie. the specs I was referencing). Although it does seem like the Platform 2 drones would be more of what you’d imagine for drones dropping consumer packages in the US. And that article goes on to state that this ruling seems like a jumping off point for securing further exemptions (ie for the Platform 2).
I recommend you do set up key authentication. You'll get more convenient logins and better security. This page should document how to do it: https://www.ssh.com/academy/ssh/copy-id
> The issue with the non-standard license for the application stems from problems that arose with NewPipe, an open-source media player. When a video recommended downloading NewPipe, many people mistakenly downloaded a malware-ridden version from the Play Store. This fake version was loaded with ads and sometimes even required payment. The crux of the problem is that people were forking NewPipe, adding ads and trackers, and then asking for money on the Play Store. To prevent this kind of exploitation and deceit, the developers of the application in question opted for a less permissive license. This allows them to retain the right to take action against anyone who forks their application and tries to monetize it through deceptive means. They are committed to an ad-free, non-tracking application and don't want to engage in a business model where the user becomes the product.
Source: https://youtu.be/5DePDzfyWkw?si=ivUrdDTwrhqUdt37&t=613