The most recent version of minitube removed the download-button, after the developer was … to do so¹. But there is a build flag to enable it², so I think Gentoo should provide a USE-flag for it. build flag: APP_DOWNLOADS I would propose “download” as useflag, in line with dev-haskell/tagsoup. ¹: “@flaviotordini was threatened^Wasked to remove it.” — https://twitter.com/sur5r_/status/399813555517931520 ²: “It's pretty easy, just build with APP_DOWNLOADS enabled. But make sure to add a line in the about box stating what you did.” — https://twitter.com/flaviotordini/status/401362093183881217 Reproducible: Always
Followup: “@ArneBab @sur5r_ As I wrote, make sure users understand that you or your organisation are responsible for adding the feature.” — https://twitter.com/flaviotordini/status/401385551255072769 For Gentoo this likely means, we should also add a patch to the about-page which notes that the download-button was enabled with the USE-flag on request of the user. Example: “Support for downloading videos added by request of the user via the <useflag> USE flag. If you are not sure whether downloading videos from youtube is legal in your country, please disable the USE flag again.” Also the USE flag should likely be disabled by default, so Gentoo cannot be held liable.
patches are welcomed
Adding licenses@ for legal advice here
I don't want to patch the code to mess with the "About" page. It would be better if the -DAPP_DOWNLOADS would add the appropriate wording in the code instead. Such a patch will not be applicable in future versions meaning that the maintenance cost will be much higher.
(In reply to Markos Chandras from comment #3) > Adding licenses@ for legal advice here Which you won't get from us, because we are no lawyers. <TINLA> I don't see how Gentoo could be held liable. The software is distributed under GPL-3+ which includes warranty and liability disclaimers in sections 15 to 17. YouTube LLC is providing the contents and the interface to access it. They say in their terms of service that only streaming is allowed. As I see it, all responsibility is with Youtube and the user who has accepted these terms of service. Gentoo doesn't access their site, and we have neither accepted their terms of service, nor concluded any other contract with them. (The question is of course if accessing their site constitutes acceptance of their terms of service, as they don't enforce the user reading them. They have other interesting clauses: e.g., persons that are not of legal age are not allowed to use their services. Again, this is not enforced in any way. But what would you expect from a company whose whole business model is based on copyright infringement? ;-) </TINLA>
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #5) > (In reply to Markos Chandras from comment #3) > > Adding licenses@ for legal advice here > > Which you won't get from us, because we are no lawyers. True :/ Any idea who should I ask? > > <TINLA> > I don't see how Gentoo could be held liable. The software is distributed > under GPL-3+ which includes warranty and liability disclaimers in sections > 15 to 17. > > YouTube LLC is providing the contents and the interface to access it. They > say in their terms of service that only streaming is allowed. As I see it, > all responsibility is with Youtube and the user who has accepted these terms > of service. Gentoo doesn't access their site, and we have neither accepted > their terms of service, nor concluded any other contract with them. > > (The question is of course if accessing their site constitutes acceptance of > their terms of service, as they don't enforce the user reading them. They > have other interesting clauses: e.g., persons that are not of legal age are > not allowed to use their services. Again, this is not enforced in any way. > But what would you expect from a company whose whole business model is based > on copyright infringement? ;-) > </TINLA> I see no problem either.
> True :/ Any idea who should I ask? You could ask someone from the EFF: https://www.eff.org/issues/coders → https://www.eff.org/about/contact → https://www.eff.org/pages/legal-assistance
(In reply to Arne Babenhauserheide from comment #7) > > True :/ Any idea who should I ask? > > You could ask someone from the EFF: https://www.eff.org/issues/coders > > → https://www.eff.org/about/contact > → https://www.eff.org/pages/legal-assistance I don't think it's my problem to sort this out to be honest. I find it a bit "silly" to be held accountable for what users might do with the ebuilds Gentoo provides.
(In reply to Markos Chandras from comment #8) > I don't think it's my problem to sort this out to be honest. I find it a bit > "silly" to be held accountable for what users might do with the ebuilds > Gentoo provides. My take on it is: Upstream asked us to add a note to the About-page. I wrote him an email, asking whether he’ll take a patch for a distribution-independent note on the About-page which gets activated when the build flag is activated. That’s the requirement: When upstream can defer this to the compiling user, Gentoo can do the same. Since upstream seems to have gotten into the hot for the feature, we likely should not make the useflag active by default. Legally speaking, I think Gentoo is just as safe with this as with features, where the user locally combines GPL-code with non-compatibly licensed code. So even a useflag active by default should be legally safe, BUT (and this is a big but) aside from IANAL even if we’re safe in terms of laws, that does not mean that people cannot create problems for Gentoo: Legal battles waste time, even if you win in the end.
(In reply to Arne Babenhauserheide from comment #9) > (In reply to Markos Chandras from comment #8) > > I don't think it's my problem to sort this out to be honest. I find it a bit > > "silly" to be held accountable for what users might do with the ebuilds > > Gentoo provides. > > My take on it is: Upstream asked us to add a note to the About-page. I wrote > him an email, asking whether he’ll take a patch for a > distribution-independent note on the About-page which gets activated when > the build flag is activated. That’s the requirement: When upstream can defer > this to the compiling user, Gentoo can do the same. Since upstream seems to > have gotten into the hot for the feature, we likely should not make the > useflag active by default. As I explained, we can have the use flag but not the "custom message" patch in the About page because this will become a PITA to maintain it as the source code evolves. If upstream is not willing to do that for us, what we can do is to add a pkg_postinst() message to inform the user of the implications of downloading youtube videos (could you author such a message?It will take me sometime to find out the actual implications on youtube website) Removing licenses@ from CC as well
(In reply to Markos Chandras from comment #10) > As I explained, we can have the use flag but not the "custom message" patch > in the About page because this will become a PITA to maintain it as the > source code evolves. If upstream is not willing to do that for us, what we > can do is to add a pkg_postinst() message to inform the user of the > implications of downloading youtube videos (could you author such a > message?It will take me sometime to find out the actual implications on > youtube website) A postinst message sounds good. I would propose something like this: “You activated the `download` USE flag. This allows you to download videos from youtube, which might violate the youtube terms-of-service (TOS) in some legislations. If downloading youtube-videos is not allowed in your legislation, please disable the `download` USE flag. For details on the youtube TOS, see http://www.youtube.com/t/terms and ask a copyright lawyer on applicability and validity of the TOS.” (not being allowed to download youtube-videos likely (as in IANAL, but I can read) falls under “surprising TOS” in Germany, which would invalidate any legal implications of the TOS)
(In reply to Arne Babenhauserheide from comment #11) > [...] > and ask a copyright lawyer on applicability and validity of the TOS.” Note that it has nothing to do with copyright. The TOS could only be part of a contract that the user concludes with Youtube (but see comment #5 above). So, make that "ask a lawyer" or omit the phrase entirely.
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #12) > (In reply to Arne Babenhauserheide from comment #11) > > [...] > > and ask a copyright lawyer on applicability and validity of the TOS.” > > Note that it has nothing to do with copyright. The TOS could only be part of > a contract that the user concludes with Youtube (but see comment #5 above). > > So, make that "ask a lawyer" or omit the phrase entirely. Thanks. Dropped the lawyer sentence altogether and committed it. + 19 Nov 2013; Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> metadata.xml, + minitube-2.1.3.ebuild: + Add useflag to enable/disable support for downloading youtube videos. Bug + #491344 +
Cool, thanks! But shouldn’t there be a new revision of the ebuild, then?
(In reply to Arne Babenhauserheide from comment #14) > Cool, thanks! > > But shouldn’t there be a new revision of the ebuild, then? Maybe yes maybe no. I opted not to revbump it. But it's not like something major got changed. People will get the new useflag from the usual 'emerge -uDNav world'
OK - thanks again!
