JDownloader2 is an open source alternative and I cannot imagine using anything else (there are too many features). And I'm saying that as a python developer.
> I find JDownloader2 to be very scammy feeling. It feels like adware software.
That's because it's not in fact open source. From Wikipedia:
> Some parts, but not all, of JDownloader are open-source.
> Mid-2012 there were complaints that JDownloader's installer added adware without the user's consent.[4] The JDownloader installation contains adware according to several sources, including the developer's own forums.[5][6] There were further complaints mid-2014.
JD is basically junkware. There's a reason why it doesn't seem to be packaged on any Linux distribution. It's not community-focused OSS in the ordinary sense.
JD is just way too slow and bloated for me, especially on an old machines. While I'm sure its power extends beyond this, its value as I remember them lies on downloading rapidshare-like file sharing links.
But with those kind of stuff going out of fashion, I nowadays just use uGet for a GUI download manager and youtube-dl, gallery-dl, streamlink, et al. for specialized download helpers.
I looked over their pricing tiers [1] and it's definitely not for me. The free tier is just absurdly limited (2 simultaneous torrent downloads, capped video quality, ads(!), etc). This might be acceptable in 2003 but I'm surprised this kind of stuff can survive nowadays when there are so many other free and probably superior alternatives.
If you just need a simple script to download youtube videos, here's a very basic one I made as a wrapper to youtube-dl.
You'll need to edit the option string to the path you want it to save videos to. I have it set to not download playlists, but you can do whatever you please with the option string.
Just copy the youtube url, mouseover the input field(it will grab the url from the clipboard, and press the get file button. No frills but it works fine for my needs.
This is very cool. Cool enough that I think it would be worth giving it a catchier name. It's awkward to recommend "pie eye dee em" to people using spoken language.
Ironically, it's not even open source, as another commenter revealed. It has a list of "acceptable uses" appended as something like GPL exception / addendum to the license page. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24169301
The comparison with aria2 is absurd as well. You can't compare the relative speed of two programs by running them at the same time! I would steer clear of this program.
I finally realized you meant the license page! Actually, on this page it's clearly stated along with a number of other exceptions to the LGPL v3. This clearly makes the program not open source software under the FSF's definition and I think it would be extremely risky to use even part of this code in your own application.
> videos / streams / contents that are not allowed to be downloaded using this application are:
> DRM "Digital rights management", protected videos / streams or Copyright materials.
> Porn videos/streams or any pornography materials.
> Illegal contents.
> Any contents that encourage/promote violence or criminal/illegal behaviours
Heh. I really like this description. I'm not sure what's the reason for it looking like that.
Back in the days of Windows XP I used a program called "Free Download Manager" that made things significantly faster (due to multiplexing) over dial-up and DSL. And the interface was quite good. Pretty sure it might actually be harder to make a UI look this bad, these days.
