10 ms·

FDroid debating Aves Libre app TOS as reason for removal

107 points by transportheap 4y ago

josephcsible 4y ago
> The issue upstream was quickly closed, and I am now banned from commenting on it, so it doesn't look like we can ask upstream much. This is all I needed to see to know that the upstream developer is in the wrong.
rany_ 4y ago
I agree with FDroid here but as a compromise if the author wants to keep his little TOS banner he could instead turn it into a less forceful disclaimer with less forceful language. Basically instead of a TOS popup with "You cannot use it for illegal..." it ends being a disclaimer with something like "This app was designed for legal use..."
- rcthompson 4y ago
  The author's position is that they are "not interested in this kind of issues"[1]. They aren't willing to do anything to address this at all. [1] https://github.com/deckerst/aves/issues/517#issuecomment-1422693909 https://github.com/deckerst/aves/issues/517#issuecomment-142...
  - einpoklum 4y ago
    They are so "uninterested" that they took the time to implement a TOS dialog in their app.
- kirimita 4y ago
  For your information, your suggestion has been the solution https://github.com/deckerst/aves/pull/519 https://github.com/deckerst/aves/pull/519
  - rany_ 4y ago
    That's nice. I didn't expect my suggestion to be considered!
aftergibson 4y ago
I feel like the pro-FOSS commenters position is clear and reasoning well articulated. If the developer doesn’t want to comply then fine, at least it’s nice to see the this debate unlike the black box of typical app stores. Edit: It’s the fdroid IRC mod not fdroid leadership. My mistake!
- lolinder 4y ago
  F-Droid's position on this particular app is non-existent. The F-Droid maintainer who has replied on the issue has so far just asked "aren't we over-reacting a bit?" Someone not directly affiliated with F-Droid is trying to get the app removed.
  - Macha 4y ago
    Note: They appear to be a moderator of the F-Droid IRC, so while not project leadership, not totally unaffiliated either.
    - lolinder 4y ago
      Ah, fair enough, I stand corrected. I was looking at their GitLab profile, which has a few minor contributions to F-Droid projects over several years but definitely doesn't have maintainer status. It is still accurate to say that F-Droid doesn't have a formal position on this app, and that the only position any maintainer has adopted so far is "why are we freaking out?"
      - aftergibson 4y ago
        Ah yeah, I can see that. Admittedly I assumed based on the title of this post the person debating represented Fdroid, so perhaps it should be updated to reflect this?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
rsynnott 4y ago
Not sure why there was so much discussion about it; whatever about the quibbles over what the TOS _means_, it fairly clearly makes it not FOSS.
- rat9988 4y ago
  How does the TOS make it not FOSS?
  - rcthompson 4y ago
    Did you read the thread? It's explained pretty clearly.
  - tremon 4y ago
    Because Freedom #0 says "you may use this software for any purpose". Including terms of service to curb that freedom makes it non-Free.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    This is an excellent question. Which part of the 3-clause BSD license that the author selected is inconsistent with the "TOS" that the app shows? Or is the 3-clause BSD not a FOSS license?
    - cuu508 4y ago
      If you add your own extra restrictions to the 3-clause BSD license then it is not the 3-clause BSD license any more.
  - weberer 4y ago
    >A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: >The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). >The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. >The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). >The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html By adding a ToS, you remove Freedom 0.
mouse_ 4y ago
If I had it my way, my app store would only allow GPL, MIT, BSD, WTFPL, maybe Apache. You want a EULA, go beg Google to host your restrictive app.
- dsr_ 4y ago
  The app in question is BSD 3-clause... the EULA can be removed by a forker, and perhaps it will be.
  - rcthompson 4y ago
    I don't think it's as cut-and-dry as you're making it sound. This question seems like something you need an actual lawyer for.
    - meragrin_ 4y ago
      How is it not as cut-and-dry as it sounds? There is nothing in the source license which requires the developer to include the EULA in other works.
      - rat9988 4y ago
        These terms are an extension of the license.
- djcannabiz 4y ago
  I know very little about open source licenses, would you be willing to clarify why maybe apache? I have thought of apache as „MIT but don’t sue me over patents.“ is that correct?
jonas21 4y ago
FDroid can remove the app if they want, but it's annoying that folks decided to show up and harass the developer on his Github repo. https://github.com/deckerst/aves/issues/517 https://github.com/deckerst/aves/issues/517
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- neoromantique 4y ago
  ~~I don't see harrasment there, dev is free to do as he wishes with his app, but there's nothing wrong with bringing it up. What is not okay is being a dick and calling people "zealots" over it.~~ EDIT: I didn't see the further replies that happened after this was posted on HN. I misunderstood and referred to creation of the issue itself.
  - belval 4y ago
    Why do people always feel entitled to tell people what to do? The guy said he doesn't care and to remove it from FDroid if needed. The guy can be a dick, the guy can be as distasteful as humanly possible. It's "okay". That's that, if you want to use it just fork it.
    - neoromantique 4y ago
      The guy decided to upload his project to GitHub and make it public, there was nothing in the initial issue that would warrant the response it did. Author is free not to remove ToS, but he doesn't have to be a dick about it.
      - abnry 4y ago
        Author is doing nothing wrong, not even in tone. One could argue that demanding something of a developer of software you don't pay for is the jerk move. FDroid still has the option to remove the app. Author appears to be okay with that. No issue, unless you are demanding something of the developer. Freedom cuts both ways, both for the user and the developer.
nix0n 4y ago
Here is the TOS: https://github.com/deckerst/aves/blob/main/assets/terms.md https://github.com/deckerst/aves/blob/main/assets/terms.md
- vinaypai 4y ago
  It does sound pretty problematic from a FOSS point of view. > You must use the app for legal, authorized and acceptable purposes. In particular the "authorized" and "acceptable" part. Authorized by whom? Acceptable to whom?
  - entropicdrifter 4y ago
    IANAL but the fact that those are that open to interpretation says to me that they're probably legally unenforceable.
    - bityard 4y ago
      My guess is that the f-froid maintainers (or their users) don't want the possibility of having to pay to defend that argument in court.
      - Macha 4y ago
        Perhaps after the OGL stunt by wizards of the coast, the issue reporter was also feeling less charitable about vague uses of authorized, also
  - luckylion 4y ago
    What I find more interesting: they're not saying you must not use it for illegal, unauthorized or unacceptable purposes. Do something legal, authorized and acceptable and you've fulfilled that requirement. Then do whatever you want with it.
    - renewiltord 4y ago
      Haha, that's funny. Having installed it and accepted the ToS, you have violated them if you do not then use the app for something legal, authorized, and acceptable. If you hit Accept but close the app before the next screen that means you are a violator. I like your reading of it.
RobotToaster 4y ago
The problem with any condition that says "Must be used legally" is that by implication you're supporting the law of every country in the world.
bluGill 4y ago
I wish there was something the law would do about legalese that says something obvious. The terms only use for legal things should be understood already, and this illegal to waste the users time with. People reading a contract should feel like it is important to read the contract because it says something they wouldn't be sure of. When the contract just says what you already know it is a waste of everyone's time and the writer should be penalized for that. Note, I also think EULAs should be individually negotiated and signed. If the limits on use of the program are something other than what the law (possibly fair use) already says I should have a lawyer involved on my side.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  "Wasting someone's time" should not be illegal.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  Under several jurisdictions, the depiction of Muhammed is a crime (with extremely harsh punishments). Am I, a citizen of a free country, not allowed to use this app to read a book that has such a depiction? Is this "acceptable"? Surely if the author lives in such an oppressive country it should be obvious that they don't want me to use the app for this purpose, and I would clearly be in violation of their terms of service, going directly against the open source license and principals. I don't know who the author is or where they live but the point still stands. And that doesn't even consider the moet vague terms of the sentence. This looks like one of those "don't pirate books with our app" clauses that's very well-intentioned, but at odds with the open source license attached to the product. This is what you get when laymen start doing lawyer work, and why copy-pasting legalese is much safer than trying to write your own. Obviously neither F-Droid nor any of its users are at any risk of violating the ToS, let alone any consequences of doing so. The problem is that you can either allow ToS/license violations or you can't, there's no in-between. It should also be noted that F-Droid itself may have issues, since the official repository only contains code F-Droid compiles unlike other app stores where you can upload compiled applications. It's an interesting problem that I'm sure will be solved quickly without too much hassle, but it's also a lesson for open source developers to watch out when it comes to writing terms and conditions.
sundarurfriend 4y ago
PSA: *Please* don't brigade the Github issue of the app. It's not productive, doesn't help anyone, and can only make things worse for both sides.
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  This. Odds are there’s a comment that covers what you have to say. You can thumbs up it if you feel the need.
  - KennyBlanken 4y ago
    Oh, the irony.
    - Waterluvian 4y ago
      In my defence I added additional ideas. But not in my defence: I do love some irony.
- superkuh 4y ago
  Don't worry. I can't even read it. It's just a header and a blank white page. I miss back when gitlab had HTML.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pvg 4y ago
  That doesn't really work too well. What does work is flagging forum crosslnks to live ongoing project drama off the front page and even better, just not posting things like that to HN.
- calvinmorrison 4y ago
  too late!
  - shrx 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
calvinmorrison 4y ago
I enjoy the author's response, a reminder that excess piety does not grant you time out of someone elses day. After replying with this, he closes the ticket "I'm not a lawyer and I'm not interested in this kind of issues. If you think the app, as it is with its terms, should be removed from F-Droid, feel free to reach out to them."
- pessimizer 4y ago
  It's really the only healthy response. If you want to use his work, comply with his license. If F-Droid doesn't accept his licensing, they don't have to distribute it. The main reason I use F-Droid is because of the apps that they don't distribute. The standards they set allow me to feel safe installing unknown software. I like F-Droid for the same reason that Apple fanatics like their app store; because of what's not allowed.
  - calvinmorrison 4y ago
    The main reason I use F-Droid is because, it's closer to a Ubuntu style repository, that I can assume it's basically open source, maybe some licesning restrictions, certainly not like 'free' apps in the appstore designed to generate income for the author. And it's almost always me getting stupid apps that should just be part of the OS. A Calendar app, I can use without having a gmail account A note taking app A sound recorder etc.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    It's perfectly ok to ask if he want to change the license. Even more a change like this, that takes nothing at all from him. It's as ok as he not wanting to. The real question is why does local software come with a TOS? I would nope out of it without even reading, and would (and am) become a bit wary of F-Droid for including this.
meitros 4y ago
So, do they run into problems with anything that uses JSON? (JSON has a clause in their license: "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.")
- pessimizer 4y ago
  jslint
- Macha 4y ago
  The first party Crockford implementation? Not free software. The specification diagrams or text on json.org? Similarly non free. The JSON format itself? Arguably not copyrightable. Maybe patentable, had Crockford tried 20 years ago, but that's more an argument for the lunacy of many software patents. If you're concerned about the implications of the JSON license on JSON implementations, wait until you hear about the ISO8601 spec's license
benatkin 4y ago
FDroid hasn't provided a solution for browser extensions so there's room for another iteration, perhaps to a federated universal app store, possibly with NFTs. Like with Mastodon you could have allowlists/blocklists of servers rather than individual packages. In the mean time I think FDroid is doing a pretty good job being gatekeepers to prevent malware. Keep in mind, this is being blocked on open source grounds, but they use open source to be able to audit the security of packages. They could allow non-open source source available but that would be extra work and why should they give that to non-open source projects?
- ptx 4y ago
  How would NFTs help?
  - benatkin 4y ago
    There are numerous ways they could help, but it may not be easy. NFTs are just tokens in a blockchain. A few applications that come into mind are: 1. incentivizing reproducing builds, kinda like Solana Validator Nodes (this would work well w/ WASM, but more rewards could be given to those running a container or MicroVM based on an OCI image) 2. DAOs for governance of an instance (like a Mastodon instance, imagine big ones like mastodon.social as well as little ones) (I'm surprised I haven't heard of DAO-led Mastodon instances) 3. Curation - a namespace could require tokens to get a name, just like crypto domain name registries 4. Crowdfunding - you could buy NFTs to crowdfund and then be left with a token that might be worth something
- weberer 4y ago
  >you could have allowlists/blocklists of servers rather than individual packages That's already how F-Droid works. The default repository only allows FOSS apps, but you can add any third-party repository you want and you'll be able to install its apps from F-Droid. https://forum.f-droid.org/t/known-repositories/721 https://forum.f-droid.org/t/known-repositories/721
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jamesyeldritch 4y ago
The issue is that the TOS requires the user to not do anything "illegal". While on the surface this may seem an innocuous contract to agree to, in actuality this TOS pointlessly spits in the face of anyone living in a country where speaking out against oppressive leadership can incur serious consequences (such as a lengthy prison sentence). Take a photo of yourself protesting an authoritative regime? Well, you just violated the app's TOS. So, that's why it's not in the spirit of FOSS. It is needless quasi-legalese. It is "lawful neutral" in a negative way.
- benatkin 4y ago
  In the Aves GitHub issue the author said "thanks for being sane" to IzzySoft and later down the thread IzzySoft disagreed with him. Surprised the issue still isn't locked. Usually things like this turn into a popcorn fest.
  - jamesyeldritch 4y ago
    It seems most likely the author's intent was to limit his own liability by including a vague TOS. What makes more sense is to provide the software strictly "AS-IS", without any guarantees, liabilities, warranty, or implied use-case. Y'know, like many FOSS licenses (GPL/BSD/MIT/etc). So, the BSD license used for the app itself actually had the author covered.
    - benatkin 4y ago
      Yeah, I'm not sure why there's an issue. It's just a reminder that F-Droid still has to make subjective decisions. There doesn't seem to be anything in the repository that would make me think the Terms of Service in the notice are attached to the license on the Source Code. Anyone who doesn't want it or wants to provide it to other people who don't want it could fork it and make a build without the notice, or with their own notice.
      - jamesyeldritch 4y ago
        The issue is that the TOS has ridiculous, absurd requirements while granting the author of the software no actual, real-world benefit. And that the software can no longer be considered FOSS when it easily could have been. It's like writing a TOS that states: "Thou shall only use this software in accordance with the seven heavenly virtues".
NoboruWataya 4y ago
This is one of those situations where it feels like the issue creator is being annoying and pedantic, but ultimately they are probably correct. I actually have a lot of sympathy for Izzy's initial "what's the big deal" reaction, but I think it is also explained quite clearly what the issue is. IMO the issue is mainly with "authorized" and "acceptable", which are very vague and could certainly be construed as an attempt to limit user freedom. They are so vague and nebulous that I suspect the author simply slapped them on without giving them much thought because they sound like legalistic, CYA-esque language. Beyond the hassle of changing the code and pushing the changes to the IzzyDroid repo, I can't imagine the author could have much of an objection to removing them - they're certainly not doing much to actually protect him. The discussion of the reference to "legal" use is more interesting to me. You could argue that even that is a restriction on freedom 0, but equally, you could argue that the language does not actually take away any legal right/freedom, as (by definition) you don't have the right to do illegal things in the first place. (It is not generally considered illegal to do things that are crimes in other countries, as laws are not generally considered to have extra-territorial effect.)
Animats 4y ago
Terms of service? For a "gallery" program that displays locally stored pictures? There is no "service" there. (One hopes.)
james_in_the_uk 4y ago
TL;DR - software author implements TOS with some vague language. Someone loosely affiliated with F-Droid complains it doesn’t meet F-Droid’s inclusion standards. Author confirms F-Droid is free to remove it if they wish.
User23 4y ago
Is there any lawyer here who is willing to give a not legal advice opinion on whether or not the MIT license permits forking and removing the objectionable clickwrap agreement?
- tpxl 4y ago
  Why wouldn't it?

107 points by transportheap 4y ago

> The issue upstream was quickly closed, and I am now banned from commenting on it, so it doesn't look like we can ask upstream much. This is all I needed to see to know that the upstream developer is in the wrong.

rany_ 4y ago

I agree with FDroid here but as a compromise if the author wants to keep his little TOS banner he could instead turn it into a less forceful disclaimer with less forceful language. Basically instead of a TOS popup with "You cannot use it for illegal..." it ends being a disclaimer with something like "This app was designed for legal use..."

rcthompson 4y ago
The author's position is that they are "not interested in this kind of issues"[1]. They aren't willing to do anything to address this at all. [1] https://github.com/deckerst/aves/issues/517#issuecomment-1422693909 https://github.com/deckerst/aves/issues/517#issuecomment-142...
- einpoklum 4y ago
  They are so "uninterested" that they took the time to implement a TOS dialog in their app.
kirimita 4y ago
For your information, your suggestion has been the solution https://github.com/deckerst/aves/pull/519 https://github.com/deckerst/aves/pull/519
- rany_ 4y ago
  That's nice. I didn't expect my suggestion to be considered!

aftergibson 4y ago

I feel like the pro-FOSS commenters position is clear and reasoning well articulated. If the developer doesn’t want to comply then fine, at least it’s nice to see the this debate unlike the black box of typical app stores. Edit: It’s the fdroid IRC mod not fdroid leadership. My mistake!

lolinder 4y ago
F-Droid's position on this particular app is non-existent. The F-Droid maintainer who has replied on the issue has so far just asked "aren't we over-reacting a bit?" Someone not directly affiliated with F-Droid is trying to get the app removed.
- Macha 4y ago
  Note: They appear to be a moderator of the F-Droid IRC, so while not project leadership, not totally unaffiliated either.
  - lolinder 4y ago
    Ah, fair enough, I stand corrected. I was looking at their GitLab profile, which has a few minor contributions to F-Droid projects over several years but definitely doesn't have maintainer status. It is still accurate to say that F-Droid doesn't have a formal position on this app, and that the only position any maintainer has adopted so far is "why are we freaking out?"
    - aftergibson 4y ago
      Ah yeah, I can see that. Admittedly I assumed based on the title of this post the person debating represented Fdroid, so perhaps it should be updated to reflect this?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago

rsynnott 4y ago

Not sure why there was so much discussion about it; whatever about the quibbles over what the TOS _means_, it fairly clearly makes it not FOSS.

rat9988 4y ago
How does the TOS make it not FOSS?
- rcthompson 4y ago
  Did you read the thread? It's explained pretty clearly.
- tremon 4y ago
  Because Freedom #0 says "you may use this software for any purpose". Including terms of service to curb that freedom makes it non-Free.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  This is an excellent question. Which part of the 3-clause BSD license that the author selected is inconsistent with the "TOS" that the app shows? Or is the 3-clause BSD not a FOSS license?
  - cuu508 4y ago
    If you add your own extra restrictions to the 3-clause BSD license then it is not the 3-clause BSD license any more.
- weberer 4y ago
  >A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: >The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). >The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. >The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). >The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html By adding a ToS, you remove Freedom 0.

mouse_ 4y ago

If I had it my way, my app store would only allow GPL, MIT, BSD, WTFPL, maybe Apache. You want a EULA, go beg Google to host your restrictive app.

dsr_ 4y ago
The app in question is BSD 3-clause... the EULA can be removed by a forker, and perhaps it will be.
- rcthompson 4y ago
  I don't think it's as cut-and-dry as you're making it sound. This question seems like something you need an actual lawyer for.
  - meragrin_ 4y ago
    How is it not as cut-and-dry as it sounds? There is nothing in the source license which requires the developer to include the EULA in other works.
    - rat9988 4y ago
      These terms are an extension of the license.
djcannabiz 4y ago
I know very little about open source licenses, would you be willing to clarify why maybe apache? I have thought of apache as „MIT but don’t sue me over patents.“ is that correct?

jonas21 4y ago

FDroid can remove the app if they want, but it's annoying that folks decided to show up and harass the developer on his Github repo. https://github.com/deckerst/aves/issues/517 https://github.com/deckerst/aves/issues/517

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
neoromantique 4y ago
~~I don't see harrasment there, dev is free to do as he wishes with his app, but there's nothing wrong with bringing it up. What is not okay is being a dick and calling people "zealots" over it.~~ EDIT: I didn't see the further replies that happened after this was posted on HN. I misunderstood and referred to creation of the issue itself.
- belval 4y ago
  Why do people always feel entitled to tell people what to do? The guy said he doesn't care and to remove it from FDroid if needed. The guy can be a dick, the guy can be as distasteful as humanly possible. It's "okay". That's that, if you want to use it just fork it.
  - neoromantique 4y ago
    The guy decided to upload his project to GitHub and make it public, there was nothing in the initial issue that would warrant the response it did. Author is free not to remove ToS, but he doesn't have to be a dick about it.
    - abnry 4y ago
      Author is doing nothing wrong, not even in tone. One could argue that demanding something of a developer of software you don't pay for is the jerk move. FDroid still has the option to remove the app. Author appears to be okay with that. No issue, unless you are demanding something of the developer. Freedom cuts both ways, both for the user and the developer.

nix0n 4y ago

Here is the TOS: https://github.com/deckerst/aves/blob/main/assets/terms.md https://github.com/deckerst/aves/blob/main/assets/terms.md

vinaypai 4y ago
It does sound pretty problematic from a FOSS point of view. > You must use the app for legal, authorized and acceptable purposes. In particular the "authorized" and "acceptable" part. Authorized by whom? Acceptable to whom?
- entropicdrifter 4y ago
  IANAL but the fact that those are that open to interpretation says to me that they're probably legally unenforceable.
  - bityard 4y ago
    My guess is that the f-froid maintainers (or their users) don't want the possibility of having to pay to defend that argument in court.
    - Macha 4y ago
      Perhaps after the OGL stunt by wizards of the coast, the issue reporter was also feeling less charitable about vague uses of authorized, also
- luckylion 4y ago
  What I find more interesting: they're not saying you must not use it for illegal, unauthorized or unacceptable purposes. Do something legal, authorized and acceptable and you've fulfilled that requirement. Then do whatever you want with it.
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    Haha, that's funny. Having installed it and accepted the ToS, you have violated them if you do not then use the app for something legal, authorized, and acceptable. If you hit Accept but close the app before the next screen that means you are a violator. I like your reading of it.

RobotToaster 4y ago

The problem with any condition that says "Must be used legally" is that by implication you're supporting the law of every country in the world.

bluGill 4y ago

I wish there was something the law would do about legalese that says something obvious. The terms only use for legal things should be understood already, and this illegal to waste the users time with. People reading a contract should feel like it is important to read the contract because it says something they wouldn't be sure of. When the contract just says what you already know it is a waste of everyone's time and the writer should be penalized for that. Note, I also think EULAs should be individually negotiated and signed. If the limits on use of the program are something other than what the law (possibly fair use) already says I should have a lawyer involved on my side.

madeofpalk 4y ago
"Wasting someone's time" should not be illegal.
jeroenhd 4y ago
Under several jurisdictions, the depiction of Muhammed is a crime (with extremely harsh punishments). Am I, a citizen of a free country, not allowed to use this app to read a book that has such a depiction? Is this "acceptable"? Surely if the author lives in such an oppressive country it should be obvious that they don't want me to use the app for this purpose, and I would clearly be in violation of their terms of service, going directly against the open source license and principals. I don't know who the author is or where they live but the point still stands. And that doesn't even consider the moet vague terms of the sentence. This looks like one of those "don't pirate books with our app" clauses that's very well-intentioned, but at odds with the open source license attached to the product. This is what you get when laymen start doing lawyer work, and why copy-pasting legalese is much safer than trying to write your own. Obviously neither F-Droid nor any of its users are at any risk of violating the ToS, let alone any consequences of doing so. The problem is that you can either allow ToS/license violations or you can't, there's no in-between. It should also be noted that F-Droid itself may have issues, since the official repository only contains code F-Droid compiles unlike other app stores where you can upload compiled applications. It's an interesting problem that I'm sure will be solved quickly without too much hassle, but it's also a lesson for open source developers to watch out when it comes to writing terms and conditions.

sundarurfriend 4y ago

PSA: *Please* don't brigade the Github issue of the app. It's not productive, doesn't help anyone, and can only make things worse for both sides.

Waterluvian 4y ago
This. Odds are there’s a comment that covers what you have to say. You can thumbs up it if you feel the need.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  Oh, the irony.
  - Waterluvian 4y ago
    In my defence I added additional ideas. But not in my defence: I do love some irony.
superkuh 4y ago
Don't worry. I can't even read it. It's just a header and a blank white page. I miss back when gitlab had HTML.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pvg 4y ago
That doesn't really work too well. What does work is flagging forum crosslnks to live ongoing project drama off the front page and even better, just not posting things like that to HN.
calvinmorrison 4y ago
too late!
- shrx 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

calvinmorrison 4y ago

I enjoy the author's response, a reminder that excess piety does not grant you time out of someone elses day. After replying with this, he closes the ticket "I'm not a lawyer and I'm not interested in this kind of issues. If you think the app, as it is with its terms, should be removed from F-Droid, feel free to reach out to them."

pessimizer 4y ago
It's really the only healthy response. If you want to use his work, comply with his license. If F-Droid doesn't accept his licensing, they don't have to distribute it. The main reason I use F-Droid is because of the apps that they don't distribute. The standards they set allow me to feel safe installing unknown software. I like F-Droid for the same reason that Apple fanatics like their app store; because of what's not allowed.
- calvinmorrison 4y ago
  The main reason I use F-Droid is because, it's closer to a Ubuntu style repository, that I can assume it's basically open source, maybe some licesning restrictions, certainly not like 'free' apps in the appstore designed to generate income for the author. And it's almost always me getting stupid apps that should just be part of the OS. A Calendar app, I can use without having a gmail account A note taking app A sound recorder etc.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  It's perfectly ok to ask if he want to change the license. Even more a change like this, that takes nothing at all from him. It's as ok as he not wanting to. The real question is why does local software come with a TOS? I would nope out of it without even reading, and would (and am) become a bit wary of F-Droid for including this.

meitros 4y ago

So, do they run into problems with anything that uses JSON? (JSON has a clause in their license: "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.")

pessimizer 4y ago
jslint
Macha 4y ago
The first party Crockford implementation? Not free software. The specification diagrams or text on json.org? Similarly non free. The JSON format itself? Arguably not copyrightable. Maybe patentable, had Crockford tried 20 years ago, but that's more an argument for the lunacy of many software patents. If you're concerned about the implications of the JSON license on JSON implementations, wait until you hear about the ISO8601 spec's license

benatkin 4y ago

FDroid hasn't provided a solution for browser extensions so there's room for another iteration, perhaps to a federated universal app store, possibly with NFTs. Like with Mastodon you could have allowlists/blocklists of servers rather than individual packages. In the mean time I think FDroid is doing a pretty good job being gatekeepers to prevent malware. Keep in mind, this is being blocked on open source grounds, but they use open source to be able to audit the security of packages. They could allow non-open source source available but that would be extra work and why should they give that to non-open source projects?

ptx 4y ago
How would NFTs help?
- benatkin 4y ago
  There are numerous ways they could help, but it may not be easy. NFTs are just tokens in a blockchain. A few applications that come into mind are: 1. incentivizing reproducing builds, kinda like Solana Validator Nodes (this would work well w/ WASM, but more rewards could be given to those running a container or MicroVM based on an OCI image) 2. DAOs for governance of an instance (like a Mastodon instance, imagine big ones like mastodon.social as well as little ones) (I'm surprised I haven't heard of DAO-led Mastodon instances) 3. Curation - a namespace could require tokens to get a name, just like crypto domain name registries 4. Crowdfunding - you could buy NFTs to crowdfund and then be left with a token that might be worth something
weberer 4y ago
>you could have allowlists/blocklists of servers rather than individual packages That's already how F-Droid works. The default repository only allows FOSS apps, but you can add any third-party repository you want and you'll be able to install its apps from F-Droid. https://forum.f-droid.org/t/known-repositories/721 https://forum.f-droid.org/t/known-repositories/721

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jamesyeldritch 4y ago

The issue is that the TOS requires the user to not do anything "illegal". While on the surface this may seem an innocuous contract to agree to, in actuality this TOS pointlessly spits in the face of anyone living in a country where speaking out against oppressive leadership can incur serious consequences (such as a lengthy prison sentence). Take a photo of yourself protesting an authoritative regime? Well, you just violated the app's TOS. So, that's why it's not in the spirit of FOSS. It is needless quasi-legalese. It is "lawful neutral" in a negative way.

benatkin 4y ago
In the Aves GitHub issue the author said "thanks for being sane" to IzzySoft and later down the thread IzzySoft disagreed with him. Surprised the issue still isn't locked. Usually things like this turn into a popcorn fest.
- jamesyeldritch 4y ago
  It seems most likely the author's intent was to limit his own liability by including a vague TOS. What makes more sense is to provide the software strictly "AS-IS", without any guarantees, liabilities, warranty, or implied use-case. Y'know, like many FOSS licenses (GPL/BSD/MIT/etc). So, the BSD license used for the app itself actually had the author covered.
  - benatkin 4y ago
    Yeah, I'm not sure why there's an issue. It's just a reminder that F-Droid still has to make subjective decisions. There doesn't seem to be anything in the repository that would make me think the Terms of Service in the notice are attached to the license on the Source Code. Anyone who doesn't want it or wants to provide it to other people who don't want it could fork it and make a build without the notice, or with their own notice.
    - jamesyeldritch 4y ago
      The issue is that the TOS has ridiculous, absurd requirements while granting the author of the software no actual, real-world benefit. And that the software can no longer be considered FOSS when it easily could have been. It's like writing a TOS that states: "Thou shall only use this software in accordance with the seven heavenly virtues".

NoboruWataya 4y ago

This is one of those situations where it feels like the issue creator is being annoying and pedantic, but ultimately they are probably correct. I actually have a lot of sympathy for Izzy's initial "what's the big deal" reaction, but I think it is also explained quite clearly what the issue is. IMO the issue is mainly with "authorized" and "acceptable", which are very vague and could certainly be construed as an attempt to limit user freedom. They are so vague and nebulous that I suspect the author simply slapped them on without giving them much thought because they sound like legalistic, CYA-esque language. Beyond the hassle of changing the code and pushing the changes to the IzzyDroid repo, I can't imagine the author could have much of an objection to removing them - they're certainly not doing much to actually protect him. The discussion of the reference to "legal" use is more interesting to me. You could argue that even that is a restriction on freedom 0, but equally, you could argue that the language does not actually take away any legal right/freedom, as (by definition) you don't have the right to do illegal things in the first place. (It is not generally considered illegal to do things that are crimes in other countries, as laws are not generally considered to have extra-territorial effect.)

Animats 4y ago

Terms of service? For a "gallery" program that displays locally stored pictures? There is no "service" there. (One hopes.)

james_in_the_uk 4y ago

TL;DR - software author implements TOS with some vague language. Someone loosely affiliated with F-Droid complains it doesn’t meet F-Droid’s inclusion standards. Author confirms F-Droid is free to remove it if they wish.

User23 4y ago

Is there any lawyer here who is willing to give a not legal advice opinion on whether or not the MIT license permits forking and removing the objectionable clickwrap agreement?

tpxl 4y ago
Why wouldn't it?