You want an e2e encrypted public DNS? https://www.quad9.net/

You want to white- / blacklist IPs and domains? Configure your DNS

don’t try to misunderstand ppl on purpose

nothing to hide nothing to fear, huh?

And i thought at least after Snowden we learnt this is bs…

To me the problem is that you wouldn’t be able to buy a car anonymously anymore, while it leaves the really rich pretty much untouched.

Art is a well known angle for money laundering or giving someone a huge sum of money pretty much without any regulation. Contracts for construction or even consulting are another way.

I don’t have access to this kind of playground - chances are, you neither. But the people supposedly targeted by this kind of law (corrupt politicians, organised crime, …), do have access to these things and are therefore not impacted.

I am pretty sure the lesser part of corruption is cash. Probably more stuff like exchanging a lucrative contract for political support.

They are not stupid. Afterall cash needs to be explained, a good contract gives you cash and the explanation.

TBH: Tech companies are not much different from how you described cops.

They don’t usually bother to learn the tech they are using properly and take all the shortcuts possible. You see this by the current spout of AI startups. Sure, LLMs work pretty good. But most other applications of AI is more like: “LOL, no idea how to solve the problem. I hooked it up to this blackbox, which i don’t understand, and trained it to give me the results i want.”

That is why i am confused. The person I replied to claims that Jerboa and Liftoff have a bad ad-network. While i don’t know Liftoff Jerboa for sure has no ads 🤔

Jerboa doesn’t have ads…?

Everyone who can read your unencrypted traffic has the possibility to intercept your encrypted stuff. So it is really not that hard.

But you don’t seem to be bothered too much about that possibility. So lets agree to disagree.

If i want to sniff your traffic, ill set up another machine as MITM attack.

I guess as long as you stay inside a secure company network, it wouldn’t be that bad. But if you go through the WWW, my advice is to manually add trusted hosts.

I hope for you, that you don’t SSH into any random machine and just import their cert.

Usually you know the machines you are trying to connect to. That gives you the ability to add their cert to your trusted hosts before connecting the first time. So for browsing the WWW this makes not much sense, since you connect to way too many unknown hosts. It would create a ‘red is green’ mentality where users just import any unknown cert.

The only similarity i see, which makes sense, would be e-banking and such. The bank could send you their certificate with the login credentials by post.

While i like ublock and use it myself, i hope not everyone uses it! There need to be different adblockers. Same as just one browser, or one forum is vulnerable to different things, so would adblocks be.

Common misconception. “Free as in freedom, not as in beer” had to be explained to many people.

I don’t claim to know what their true intentions are. But if you want your APK with additional malware removed from any appstore, it for sure helps to have terms which don’t allow ppl to do so.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to earn money, but their approach is the weakest. I did not even see a dialogue asking me for money yet.

I have found three comments from you, where you insert yourself as an expert on what Open Source is/not is. Although you do link to some sources, you do so without arguing your point. IMO this is not a constructive way of communication. Since I believe your perspective is purist but overall not too helpful, I will go through the trouble an actually argue the point:

Your problem is following sentence published by the OSI: “The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources.” Which FUTO does - they won’t allow you to put ads on top of their software and distribute it. But I hope that you would agree with me that GNU GPL is an Open Source License. However, they do have a copyleft which practically makes selling software impossible. If you use a library which uses the GPL, you have to make your sources available - which makes selling a compiled version a difficult task…

If we look at Wikipedia, we see following sentence: “Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design.”, Grayjay fulfils this. Wikipedia continues: “{…}. Depending on the license terms, others may then download, modify, and publish their version {…}”, you are allowed to download and modify Grayjay. They do not allow you to commercially distribute your modifications, which is a license term.

Lets look at a big OSS company. Red Hat writes: “An open source development model is the process used by an open source community project to develop open source software. The software is then released under an open source license, so anyone can view or modify the source code.” These criteria are fulfilled by the FUTO TEMPORARY LICENSE (Last updated 7 June 2023). Red Hat does not mention the right to redistribute anywhere I could find it.

To those who actually read up to this point: I hope you find this helpful to form your own opinion based on your own research.

I have found three comments from you, where you insert yourself as an expert on what Open Source is/not is. Although you do link to some sources, you do so without arguing your point. IMO this is not a constructive way of communication. Since I believe your perspective is purist but overall not too helpful, I will go through the trouble an actually argue the point:

Your problem is following sentence published by the OSI: “The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources.” Which FUTO does - they won’t allow you to put ads on top of their software and distribute it. But I hope that you would agree with me that GNU GPL is an Open Source License. However, they do have a copyleft which practically makes selling software impossible. If you use a library which uses the GPL, you have to make your sources available - which makes selling a compiled version a difficult task…

If we look at Wikipedia, we see following sentence: “Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design.”, Grayjay fulfils this. Wikipedia continues: “{…}. Depending on the license terms, others may then download, modify, and publish their version {…}”, you are allowed to download and modify Grayjay. They do not allow you to commercially distribute your modifications, which is a license term.

Lets look at a big OSS company. Red Hat writes: “An open source development model is the process used by an open source community project to develop open source software. The software is then released under an open source license, so anyone can view or modify the source code.” These criteria are fulfilled by the FUTO TEMPORARY LICENSE (Last updated 7 June 2023). Red Hat does not mention the right to redistribute anywhere I could find it.

To those who actually read up to this point: I hope you find this helpful to form your own opinion based on your own research.

Since they encourage ppl to write plugins, hopefully someone will write an import feature.

Afterall a healthy mentality. Even if I think Rossmann does some great things - he is still a rando on the internet.

Me as a dev understands the desire to protect your work against malicious actors. On the other hand some of the best work is GPL licensed. IMO their license provides an ok middle ground between protection and non-commercial redistribution.

Let actions speak louder than words.

Exactly this. Bonus points: this time privacy is more convenient than the native apps.

I see where you are coming from. Still i would argue that it is open source, since it is open for everyone to see.

The explanation for this more restrictive license was that they want to prevent what happened to newpipe. Some ppl repackaged newpipe with additional crap, put ads on it etc. They want to have the legal geounds to combat these things.

While I don’t think, they would go against me for forking it and tweaking things here and there - they have the legal ground to do so…

Ok, then I guess my location is not being targeted yet. uBlockOrigin with NoScript works well for me. There where a couple of slipups about a month ago, but hitting F5 would usually be enough.

What adblock’s are you using?

Stop using chrome! You cannot win using the browser provided by google. On Firefox adblock still works like a charm.