The creator of Nearby Glasses made the app after reading 404 Media’s coverage of how people are using Meta’s Ray-Bans smartglasses to film people without their knowledge or consent. “I consider it to be a tiny part of resistance against surveillance tech.”
more at: @feed@404media.co
Paywalled article. Here’s the link to the app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.pocketpc.nearbyglasses
Edit: it’s licensed under a license I never heard of. I’m curious, I don’t understand why it was needed.
“Why draft new licenses? Until now, there has been no standardization of this kind of source code license, even though it has become increasingly common. This has resulted in confusing and overlapping licenses, which need to be analyzed one at a time. Lack of standardization has used up the time and resources of many in the software industry, as well as their lawyers. The objective of the PolyForm Project is standardization and reduction of costs for developers and users.”
Seems like that exact XKCD about standards.
That license looks like Creative Commons Non-Comercial, which is not an open source license.
This is an unpopular opinion, but using licenses to actively prevent commercial exploitation of voluntary communal labor is not a bad thing. I would even argue that allowing commercial exploitation of free, communally-maintained software is downright unethical. I don’t tolerate this pejorative “it’s not open source unless the rich and powerful can exploit it” bullshit.
If you dont want corpos to exploit it, you go with GPL. Then they are forced to share back.
I like AGPL in theory, but in practice it never works like that. They are protected by a smoke screen — you don’t know if they are using something, how they are using it, or what they’ve built on it — and even if something did leak about their usage they are protected by money — the vast majority of FOSS projects won’t have the resources to pursue any kind of legal enforcement or reasonable remedy. In practice, they will use and build on A/GPL software while contributing nothing back in blatant violation of the spirit and intent of the license, because who is going to find out or enforce it?
This is not a remotely unpopular opinion, sharing is awesome and corpos can suck it
Thank you, I see this so often and it always irks me.
"oh but you’re limiting your reach with this license because companies won’t want to us— boo fucking hoo, maybe not everything is about market-share and having a morbillion downloads.
I know, and yet the code is open source. Confusing.
No, the code is available, which is not the same as open source.
They do call it “open source” in the docs though.
True, but I have no issue preventing commercial use. I view that as just as good if not better than traditional open source.
That’s called “source available”. FUTO basically did the same thing with their stuff after the community rightfully got angry over their use of “open source” in their docs.
Say no more
Yeah I noticed it in the favicon too. Bad aftertaste.