On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 04:10:20AM +0100, pribib wrote: > One should probably also consider youtube-dl. Looking at the > extensive list of sites > http://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/supportedsites.html I would not > think it unreasonable to presume that there are sites on this list > who only provide access to video files that are not free culture, > and so should be patched out or removed. >
I see no freedom issue with youtube-dl as the user MUST supply the link of what to download. If the user goes to not.free.site, decides they want not free asset from said site then does youtube-dl hxxps://not.free.site/asset. The onus for the lack of freedom is entirely on the user. Basically If we patch youtue-dl not to pull from non-free sites then we MUST (to be consistent) block ALL browsers we package from going to those same sites. Not our job to protect the user from themselves. Because 1.) ultimately we cannot (always a way around such things) 2.) thats not freedom. That is us deciding what a user can see and do. -- Want to send me an encrypted reply? Click here: https://hawkpost.co/box/e414d311-bd6a-4429-8e9e-6a690d5ad034 The rest of my contact details are at: https://freemor.ca/contact
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
