this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
44 points (83.3% liked)

Privacy

31998 readers
984 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No cause they want to be able to prevent people from adding ads and tracking to the app and then redistributing it.

He talks about this in the announcement video.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I saw the video. Is that really against the FOSS philosophy? I imagine that you can't do that with e.g. the kernel either.

The licencing they chose is a bit of a hack job, but I see the necessity. IMHO, it's clear that they want to advance the libre software world.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not Libre software. It's source available, which is great for a commercial product, allowing people to compile it themselves, but the license is revocable at any time.

It's not contributing to the open source ecosystem, so it's not part of the libre environment.

It's a good thing, I'm glad it exists, and I'm excited to see it spur libre development in the same vein. But it is not open source as the term is commonly used.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I will never forget whoever decided it would be a good idea to conflate "FOSS" and "open-source" to mean the same fucking thing, and to have to refer to software that has open source code "source available". I see this exact fucking discussion going on at the very minimum once a week...

Edit: I know it's a common misconception. My point is that it's a misconception because of the term choice. There's a reason we have to explain it over and over and over again.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

The person who invented the term "open source" simply intended it to be "free software" but in business speak. The fact some random people on the internet thought it means "source available" is not the term's fault.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who was it?

I thought it was companies just using marketing spin to look better than they were.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The difference with Linux kernel is that it's way more complicated to persuade someone who just likes the idea of it to install it, so there's really no protection needed - if you're installing a custom kernel (or more likely, a whole OS using that kernel) you probably know enough not to end up downloading malware.

That's not so true about just providing "random" APKs.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

no need for a restrictive license! people can just take an apk and slap ads or malware on top. they do it all the time with fake candy crush apks. So I'm pretty sure they won't care about this license.

I think that in the license is just a excuse so no one is redistributing the app and they can make money from it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

A higher skill level demand shouldn't change the licencing concepts behind a project.