What is Grayjay?

Grayjay is a cutting-edge app that serves as a video player and source aggregator. It allows you to stream and organize videos from various sources, providing a unified platform for your entertainment needs.

It’s mostly used as a YouTube frontend^. However, it is now launching as a desktop app for Linux, Mac and Windows.

  • ZeroOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    We sorely need a Truely FOSS/Libre Alternative to GrayJay (*Preferably under an AGPL Licence) So to get the ball rolling, **What does GrayJay have that FOSS alternatives like let’s say NewPipe doesn’t" ?

  • ZeroOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    I really wish there was a truly open source version of GrayJay because GrayJay is actually Not OpenSource It’s a cool application, don’t get me wrong, but it NEEDS to be OpenSource & not “Source-First/Source-Available

      • Dave@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        Typically licenses not OSI approved are referred to as “Source available” rather than “Open source”. This is one reason FUTO (who make Grayjay) refer to their license as “Source first” and not “Open Source” (though they did call it that for a while before clarifying and switching to the new term).

        • TootSweet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          18 days ago

          And by “clarifying” you mean “dunking on Open Source and parading around like the saviors of the human race for inventing Open-Source-except-with-donation-nags-to-fund-their-fully-for-profit-business.” Good job, guys, you’ve solved enshittification (/s).

          • iopq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            18 days ago

            One of the goals of source first licenses is to stop enshittification since it doesn’t allow paid clones

            Not saying I agree with their policy, but I would hope more for-profit businesses make their source code available

            • TootSweet@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              17 days ago

              One of the goals of source first licenses is to stop enshittification since it doesn’t allow paid clones

              Copyleft prevents enshittification much better than anything in their license. If someone makes a paid clone of some, for instance, AGPL 3.0 program, one person can buy it and release the source code of the paid version and then all of the improvements can be incorporated back into the version from which it was forked.

              Unless the paid clone makers go so far as to break the terms of the license. But that’s not a problem that the Grayjay license solves any better than the AGPL 3.0.

              Grayjay’s license is itself a textbook example of enshittification.

              Not saying I agree with their policy, but I would hope more for-profit businesses make their source code available

              I’m not pissed at FUTO for releasing their source code under a non-FOSS license. I’m pissed at them for doing everything in their power to sabotage Open Source specifically to serve their bottom line while also pretending they’re some champion of consumer rights in tech. And it’s really shitty to use a .org address to further drive home the lie that they’re anything but a for-profit company fucking over consumers to make a profit.

              • iopq@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                17 days ago

                The original clone keeps making money from people who don’t know any better, even if it’s an exact replica. Just look at the windows app store

          • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            18 days ago

            But they do provide a good alternative for watching videos on multiple platforms without ads, without subscriptions or anything. And the app works if you don’t pay as well. Just because they ask money for their hard work while at the same time allowing the community to work with it sounds all good to me. It’s just not completely open source and completely free. But feel free to make a non-profit true open source counterpart if you like :)

            • TootSweet@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              17 days ago

              I don’t mind them asking for money. As I said just a moment ago in another comment, “I’m pissed at them for doing everything in their power to sabotage Open Source specifically to serve their bottom line while also pretending they’re some champion of consumer rights in tech.” I wouldn’t honestly be as pissed at them if they a) had just admitted from the get-go that they were a for-profit company with no actual interest in improving/solving enshittification and b) had never coopted the term “Open Source” or dunked on Open Source.

              But feel free to make a non-profit true open source counterpart if you like

              I don’t need to.

              • ZeroOne@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 days ago

                Yeah but Newpipe doesn’t have Rumble, BiliBili, NicoNico & Odysee (With Additional provisions to add your own sources)

                Aniyomi on the other hand

          • Dave@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            18 days ago

            Haha yeah I do find the licence a bit weird. Kind of a non-commercial licence but there are definitely some parts that I don’t quite get.

            I have seen Eron Wolf talking a bit about what he is trying to do. I get his frustrations, but am not convinced their licence helps with those at all. You can’t really take open source, take away some freedoms that are sometimes taken advantage of, and pretend that removing those freedoms didn’t remove the benefits that are the reason those freedoms existed in the first place.

        • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          18 days ago

          My take: OSI needs to include noncommercial licenses. Companies like Mongo and Redis have to end up creating their own licenses with GPL poison pills just to survive commercial use, why not create a system where companies that want to be, and support, an “open source” ecosystem can thrive?

          Open Source existed before OSI.

          • airglow@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            18 days ago

            Proprietary source-available software existed before open source software, and that’s what these restricted licenses are. The FOSS community does not appreciate businesses co-opting the term open source to promote software that doesn’t grant users the right to use the source code for any purpose.

            • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              17 days ago

              As a member of the FOSS community, and someone who has written an absolute truckload of FOSS software, I stand by what I said.

              Open Source was coined before OSI was formed. OSI, and the previous launch of GNU by Stallman, was to combat the new (at the time) practice of only releasing machine code and the commercial vehicles that came along with it.

              The original spirit of sharing source code for projects in academia, before software required so much more effort, still exists in licenses like SSPLv1, etc, that are not adopted by OSI.

              I, personally, think this is a bad decision.

              I, personally, feel that an organization that wishes to make their products source-available, especially those that allow noncommercial modification, should be recognized for that, not punished or gate kept.

              I, personally, would love to see OSI adopt an open attitude towards those types of organizations, and create another official tier in the lexicon with it’s own set of standard licenses that fit under it.

              I understand and accept that other’s don’t feel that way, but that does not make their opinion about what should count as “open” any better than my own, just more widely accepted at the time.

              • airglow@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                17 days ago

                Nobody has any objection to companies making their source code available, and they are free to call their software “source-available”, “source-first”, or some other term because their source code is available. But if they restrict what users can do with the software, then it isn’t open source. MongoDB, Redis, and even FUTO now all recognize this distinction.

                The FOSS community, at large, doesn’t tolerate the watering down of recognized terms such as “open source” by bad actors who want to co-opt the term for marketing while denying users the right to use open source software for any purpose. That is known as openwashing. This kind of misappropriation is not welcome in any kind of movement, not just the FOSS movement.

                The free software and open source software movements both support rights for users, which include the right to use free software and open source software for all commercial purposes without restriction. These movements support the release of source code as one requirement for ensuring these user rights, but source availability is not the only requirement for a piece of software to be open source.

                There’s no problem with creating another classification of restricted source-available licenses as long as it isn’t called open source, a term rooted in the open source software movement’s adoption of the Open Source Definition for over 20 years.

                As for myself, I personally prefer source-available software over software with no source available, though I also prefer FOSS over restrictively licensed source-available software.

              • ZeroOne@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                17 days ago

                FUTO has exclusive rights to monetize it, If I do a better job then I should be paid no ?

                • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  17 days ago

                  That’s my argument above. No, you should not.

                  FUTO isn’t releasing this as FOSS, but they are doing something much better than most by releasing source available with noncommercial modification.

                  If you create your own solution, then yes, you should.

                  I think OSI should consider another tier of licenses that aren’t FOSS but still “open” (source available), I don’t think Grayjay should he considered FOSS (nor do they).

  • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    18 days ago

    Grayjay mobile is awesome, very much looking forward to checking this out. Love how it puts all my YouTube, Patreon, Twitch and Peertube content in one place.

      • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        18 days ago

        There’s an occasional error popup during playback, but the feeds and video still work here. I’m on Grayjay v268 w/ Patreon v17

        My biggest issue is Peertube tbh, discovery is difficult, border line useless.

  • Fizz@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    18 days ago

    That’s awesome. I love the grayjay mobile app. I need more non YouTube creators to follow though

  • Jayb151@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    18 days ago

    Mobile app has been the best YouTube app replacement I’ve found. And I just got the pop up about the desktop app on my drive home from work. Will for sure check it out.

    I wish it more closely mirrored YouTube’s native video suggestions, but it’s pretty damn close.

  • zerozaku@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    18 days ago

    Why can’t they be a website than an app for Dekstop?

    Also understood that they’re not open-source but are they privacy-respecting?

    Edit: Went through their privacy policy and seems they’re privacy-focused. I will be trying their app now.

    • timestatic@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      Personally I’ve been using FreeTube for accessing YouTube as they are FOSS. Only thing I wish they would have a feature to share like subs with Tubular and watch history somehow. It doesn’t have all the platforms Grayjay has but for just YouTube its pretty great

  • el_abuelo@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    17 days ago

    Honestly the mobile app doesn’t work for such long periods of time that I’ve all but given up and gone back to YouTube.

    If anyone knows an app to replace YouTube that is actually reliable then let me know! I’m in the market.

    • Sips'@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      What do you mean it doesnt work for longer periods of time? Been flawless for me ever since I started using it.