On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:41:45PM -0300, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: > Personally, I vote for considering youtube-dl as not a web browser (that > is: I vote for option (b)).
It is not quite clear for me why web browsers are so specific that all software is classified like "web browsers" and non-"web browsers". As I understand it, the issue is not whether some program can run proprietary software (any intrepreter can). do the scripts youtube-dl runs typically do anything really complicated?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
