A Liberated Version of Youtube-DL is Almost Here!

See https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/play-videos-without-using-flash for other alternatives.

>although it's questionable whether it's particularly "good"...

It's surely free software so I guess someone knowledgeable here will help you with it being this matter quite important I think, after all why would we want to accept loading nonfree js with out preciousss ytdl? Or you can get better and rock it on your own dedicating the right time to it..

Unfortunatelly, mpv depends on youtube-dl to view videos in these free
software unfriendly websites.

I have created a topic in the gnu-linux-libre mailing list (Workgroup
for free system distributions, not just those running GNU Linux-libre)
about this issue
([[http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2017-04/msg00001.html]]). So
far, the people that participate and commented in the topic didn't make
their vote, and didn't provide other evidence of the issue and how it
could be solved --- besides the evidence that we have found so far about
the usage of JSInterpreter to parse some "signature". Also, there's no
consideration on what free/libre system distributions must do so far
(because there's no entry for youtube-dl in
[[https://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines]],
and the entry there can only be made if the gnu-linux-libre or RMS reach
a decision).

--
- [[https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno]]
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre, por isso não uso. Iguais a ele prefiro
GNU Ring, ou Tox. Quer outras formas de contato? Adicione o vCard
que está no endereço acima aos teus contatos.
- Pretende me enviar arquivos .doc, .ppt, .cdr, ou .mp3? OK, eu
aceito, mas não repasso. Entrego apenas em formatos favoráveis ao
/software/ livre. Favor entrar em contato em caso de dúvida.

it makes sense that javascript would be executed, given how youtube works

it's possible in firefox to install greasemonkey and replace those scripts anyway. perhaps replace the JS and make youtube-dl use that instead?

Not yet, unfortunately-I admittedly didn't even consider that in setting up (I'm completely new to this whole thing). That said, I would like to.

Could anybody suggest a decent free (both senses) mailing list/forum/something host?

I think it's better to forget virtualization whenever possible. We're
talking about potential end-users here. Virtualization of non-free
software usage is still non-free software usage. This kind of usage
should be reserved only for development purposes. :)

--
- [[https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno]]
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre, por isso não uso. Iguais a ele prefiro
GNU Ring, ou Tox. Quer outras formas de contato? Adicione o vCard
que está no endereço acima aos teus contatos.
- Pretende me enviar arquivos .doc, .ppt, .cdr, ou .mp3? OK, eu
aceito, mas não repasso. Entrego apenas em formatos favoráveis ao
/software/ livre. Favor entrar em contato em caso de dúvida.

>with youtube-dl and vlc, what data am I giving up by using
>that tiny bit of JS used for making URLs readable?

What you've asked is an extremely good question, and the answer should be made absolutely clear:
At present, the JavaScript engine does not implement *any* functionality which threatens the privacy or security of the user.

As a member of the security/privacy camp of software freedom myself, this means I have no direct qualms with the current use of JS. However, there are still two reasons that it is important an alternative is developed:

*User choice. Stallman has unequivocally declared his dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs, and so I am sure there are at least a few others who must also be unwilling to accept it.

*The precedent set. Although the current state of affairs isn't too bad, the implication of "functionality over philosophy" made by this and other items of evidence published in the thread linked from the original post suggests it could get far worse if EME takes hold. Granted, that's still hypothetical thinking- but with all major browsers now aboard, how much of a fight do we expect from Alphabet when the never-content producers come knocking.

That said, please be aware external sandboxing is not (yet) needed- the limitations of the interpreter do that inherently.

>The non-free JS is needed, AFAIK.

Not quite. In general, the video signature can be obtained relatively easily just by downloading the page and applying some regular expressions. The exceptions only come from a subset of videos with 'signature encryption' (an unusual form of DRM). These appear to map quite nicely onto the types of media which come with DRM everywhere else- music videos and movies.

Not gonna happen any time soon, just like with PHP :/

name at domain wrote:
> I work 15 year in web-development. Can say that JavaScript is a tool of
> evil, but we cannot live without it.

My experience is that website developers greatly overstate the need for
Javascript and most websites would work fine without Javascript use at all
because they're lazy in a bad way: they would rather put the burden on the
user than understand what the site's needs are and do more work
server-side. Web development existed prior to JS, and most sites do little
more than look stuff up in a DB or perhaps give you a way to play something
you download from the site (audio, movie, open a file of some kind). I also
find there are remarkable accessibility issues with JS dependent sites I
would not have experienced if the site were written to work without JS.

I prefer websites that rely only on HTTPS connections, CSS, images, fonts
(though this should not be needed; one should assume the user's fonts are
sufficient and legible to the user), and valid markup. So this is really a
desire for convenience instead of looking out for a more portable website
which works well on a wider set of displays and has fewer client-side
dependencies.

I don't need or want animated user interfaces, or client-side data
validation (particularly because it saves nothing: server-side validation
still has to be done as anything from any client is untrustworthy). I want
the information I came to the site to look for, and I want that information
quickly without loading extraneous info or executing anything.

JS-laden sites always load slowly. Amazon.com is a great example of this:
that site needlessly relies on JS and loads slowly and needlessly jacks up
the client's CPU load in the process. I can get queries into the search box
before the server-supplied search-as-you-type JS loads, thus that entire
feature is nothing but wasteful and load-raising. Loading images as one
scrolls is another annoying feature that never works well: youtube.com's
web interface tries to do this and always ends up being slower to scroll
through than if they had let the browser request all the thumbnails via
ordinary image HTML references. Sometimes youtube.com's site is completely
inoperative without JS making the entire site not really a website but a JS
site.

Some websites that were built to scale up don't need JS at all:
abebooks.com, for example, sells lots of books, has site searching, and one
can complete the entire purchasing sequence without JS turned on. It works
very well.

Their new motto is "Do the right thing."

>What has been the functionality lost while liberating it?

The main function lost has been the ability to download YouTube videos with 'encrypted signatures'. These videos have a scrambled (not even encrypted, really) ID used in place of the 'real' video ID in their video page, requiring a separate proprietary script be downloaded and run from YouTube; thus, these videos are 'off-limits' until it becomes feasible to reverse engineer the algorithm used. *HOWEVER*, this only affects those videos which use it- likely music videos/movies in most cases, which means most should work fine.

Also lost are the ability to log in to iQiyi, and the integrated update command. The former is for reasons of freedom also, as it requires executing some 'SDK' script downloaded from their site in order to authenticate the user. The latter, admittedly, isn't so much for reasons of liberty as convenience; frankly, I see no reason to add ANOTHER update utility rather than just allowing the user to use their main one (with a PPA/repository to offer up-to-date packages).

>Is Soon.to.be.Free the same person as "Grace Past"?

We are indeed the same sentient being. I can't confirm or deny that I'm a human being though :).

> Google supposedly has the motto "Don't be evil", but they
>are very evil, while pretending they're good and caring for
>people

It really is a pity that they've ended up like this. Although it might be naive to presume they were above corporate greed, they did show leadership in 'open-sourcing' Android- surely not being totally oblivious to what potential profits it could bring- and even acquiring YouTube, given the lack of copy protection in the service (in 2007, anyway). Perhaps I'm exaggerating the risk-taking and forward-thinking mindset exhibited. Even if so, though, it's sad to see how 'corporate' they are now, with the fabled '20% on work, 80% on your own projects' policy perhaps the last remaining monument to their innovation-prone startup origins.