Some people (including me) care about software freedom. The ability to fork and redistribute software while continuing to publish any changes to the code is great.

Not using an open source license but a source available license is not something that I like to see, but it's their right to do so. There're enough open source YouTube frontends like NewPipe and LibreTube.

PS: What I really don't like is them using the term open source. Open source is a well known term that's well defined. Source available describes exactly what this app is without implying the freedoms associated with open source.

https://opensource.org/osd/

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

With some tools open source has many advantages, with others it's mostly about transparency. IMHO this case is the latter case. You won't gain much by being able to fork it. I don't like it when people criticize projects only because those don't align with their personal philosophy. Don't use it if you don't like it but there's really no good reason for others to avoid it.

[–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago

All people have their priorities. For most people on this community it's probably being free of cost but for some freedom is also important.

I also don't recommend against using software that's not perfect according to my personal philosophy, but I think it's important to point out any advantages and disadvanages so that anyone can decide for themselves. As I said, most people on here won't care about the difference between source available and open source.

it's mostly about transparency

Good point. If they'd use the term source available I'd have nothing to say. The reason I'm so pedantic is because increasingly businesses try to gain good publicity by calling their software open source while using Business Source License and similar, which are source available licenses.

I'll definitly follow this project and look where it's going.