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: @[email protected]

https://tech.lgbt/@yjeanrenaud/116122129025921096

  • northernlights@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    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.

    • barryamelton@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      That license looks like Creative Commons Non-Comercial, which is not an open source license.

      • BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

        • xvapx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          No, the code is available, which is not the same as open source.

        • CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 hour ago

          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.