stephane at sources.org
Sun Feb 14 07:32:59 GMT 2021
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 07:20:52PM +0000,
Vasco Costa <vasco.costa at gmx.com> wrote
a message of 36 lines which said:
> I think that every website that exposes a public API which allows
> access to their content indirectly allows the user to redistribute
> their content.
This may be your personal opinion but it is not legal advice. This
redistribution is certainly illegal in most legal systems.
> By reduction to absurdity, if we create a web browser that cannot
> render some HTML tags used by ads or that does not interpret
Here I agree with Jonathan's answer:
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 10:24:46PM +0000,
Jonathan Lane <jon at dorsal.tk> wrote
a message of 42 lines which said:
> I think this would be a lot less legally dicey if it were something
> you could run on your own LAN, akin to a caching proxy like Squid.
The big issue is not when you render things in your own way (using
lynx or Dillo is legal) but when you provide access to others.
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 11:18:14PM +0100,
Waweic <waweic at activ.ism.rocks> wrote
a message of 30 lines which said:
> I don't think there's a big difference between your platform and
> things like, for example, Invidious, Nitter, Bibliogram or even Drew
> Devaults HackerNews script.
Indeed, there is no difference. I guess that Invidious or Nitter
authors rely on the hope that Google or Twitter would not want to look
as the bad guy by suing them. And that the use of these services is
limited enough not to threaten YouTube or Twitter. But they are at the
mercy of a change of opinion from Google or Twitter and any service
running these programs could be shut down very fast.
More information about the Gemini