4 ms·

Please remove "Also available on FDroid" from the page. This app is not available on F-Droid and isn't allowed to be added to it since it isn't open source.

ASalazarMX 2y ago
Indeed, it is "Source First" license, dev(s) reasoning here: https://futo.org/about/futo-statement-on-opensource/ https://futo.org/about/futo-statement-on-opensource/
- globular-toast 2y ago
  They make a very good case against corporate-friendly licences like MIT/BSD, which I definitely agree with, but say nothing about why they don't use AGPL. Honestly I think the problem with A/GPL is that they are considered "uncool". You just can't use them, because reasons. Who decides what is cool? That's right, the marketing departments of huge corporations...
  - xmcqdpt2 2y ago
    AGPL would still allow a third party to fork their code and create a commercial product out of it, which is what they are opposed to. The AGPL only requires that the host also provides their code.
    - globular-toast 2y ago
      No, it also requires that it's licensed under the AGPL, meaning the users get free software.
      - xmcqdpt2 2y ago
        Right yes, provide their code licensed under AGPL, it's an important distinction, thanks. What it doesn't ban people from doing is selling a service, which is different from their license that allows only non-commercial uses.
graemep 2y ago
I agree that is misleading. It has its own F-droid compatible repo so you can use an F-Droid client. When I hear "available on F-Droid" I assume it means its in the F-Droid repo.
coconut08 2y ago
where it says available on fdroid it links to their personal fdroid repository. plenty of projects both open source and not have their own fdroid repository. fdroid is both a repository that only allows open source software and a packaging infrastructure tool for people hosting their own repositories. based on the fact their claim that they are on fdroid literally hyperlinks to their fdroid repository i don't see how anyone could find that misleading. if anything it's fdroids fault for giving their own repository the same name as their infrastructure tool instead of doing what every other project did and give them separate names. for example docker and dockerhub, flatpak and flathub, etc. here is a list of 100+ not official fdroid repositories. https://github.com/userkilled/FDroid-List-Repository https://github.com/userkilled/FDroid-List-Repository
- paulnpace 2y ago
  > if anything it's fdroids fault for giving their own repository the same name as their infrastructure tool instead of doing what every other project did and give them separate names. for example docker and dockerhub, flatpak and flathub, etc. F-That
- SquareWheel 2y ago
  Yep, as a user I didn't find it confusing at all. F-Droid is designed for and around adding custom repos. FUTO links to their own repo and it all works fine. I'd definitely consider this as being "available on F-Droid".
  - exikyut 2y ago
    Should say "Available Via", that would further reinforce the status quo.
627467 2y ago
It is available in fdroid on my ungoogled phone. I don't know what you're talking about
- josephcsible 2y ago
  https://search.f-droid.org/?q=grayjay&lang=en https://search.f-droid.org/?q=grayjay&lang=en > It looks like F-Droid does not have any apps matching your search string "grayjay" You're using a third-party repo that allows proprietary apps. The real F-Droid only allows FOSS ones.
  - nalinidash 2y ago
    It should be written like "available as a f-droid repo"
moeffju 2y ago
Maybe F-Droid should just call their official blessed repo "F-Repo" to end the confusion, because this is clearly available through F-Droid, just not in the F-Droid official repo...
- lrvick 2y ago
  Being able to side-load a random unsigned binary via the fdroid app, or getting it from the F-Droid repository where they do independently signed (and ideally reproducible) builds, are very different things. The F-droid team does not have a high bar to be dicks. They do it to ensure their users get binaries that match the published code to prevent increasingly supply chain attacks. The standards are there for good reason, and if you do not understand those reasons, then use a license that allows the people that do understand to distribute your software for you. Very very few software engineers understand supply chain attacks or how to prevent them.

ASalazarMX 2y ago

Indeed, it is "Source First" license, dev(s) reasoning here: https://futo.org/about/futo-statement-on-opensource/ https://futo.org/about/futo-statement-on-opensource/

globular-toast 2y ago
They make a very good case against corporate-friendly licences like MIT/BSD, which I definitely agree with, but say nothing about why they don't use AGPL. Honestly I think the problem with A/GPL is that they are considered "uncool". You just can't use them, because reasons. Who decides what is cool? That's right, the marketing departments of huge corporations...
- xmcqdpt2 2y ago
  AGPL would still allow a third party to fork their code and create a commercial product out of it, which is what they are opposed to. The AGPL only requires that the host also provides their code.
  - globular-toast 2y ago
    No, it also requires that it's licensed under the AGPL, meaning the users get free software.
    - xmcqdpt2 2y ago
      Right yes, provide their code licensed under AGPL, it's an important distinction, thanks. What it doesn't ban people from doing is selling a service, which is different from their license that allows only non-commercial uses.

graemep 2y ago

I agree that is misleading. It has its own F-droid compatible repo so you can use an F-Droid client. When I hear "available on F-Droid" I assume it means its in the F-Droid repo.

coconut08 2y ago

where it says available on fdroid it links to their personal fdroid repository. plenty of projects both open source and not have their own fdroid repository. fdroid is both a repository that only allows open source software and a packaging infrastructure tool for people hosting their own repositories. based on the fact their claim that they are on fdroid literally hyperlinks to their fdroid repository i don't see how anyone could find that misleading. if anything it's fdroids fault for giving their own repository the same name as their infrastructure tool instead of doing what every other project did and give them separate names. for example docker and dockerhub, flatpak and flathub, etc. here is a list of 100+ not official fdroid repositories. https://github.com/userkilled/FDroid-List-Repository https://github.com/userkilled/FDroid-List-Repository

paulnpace 2y ago
> if anything it's fdroids fault for giving their own repository the same name as their infrastructure tool instead of doing what every other project did and give them separate names. for example docker and dockerhub, flatpak and flathub, etc. F-That
SquareWheel 2y ago
Yep, as a user I didn't find it confusing at all. F-Droid is designed for and around adding custom repos. FUTO links to their own repo and it all works fine. I'd definitely consider this as being "available on F-Droid".
- exikyut 2y ago
  Should say "Available Via", that would further reinforce the status quo.

627467 2y ago

It is available in fdroid on my ungoogled phone. I don't know what you're talking about

josephcsible 2y ago
https://search.f-droid.org/?q=grayjay&lang=en https://search.f-droid.org/?q=grayjay&lang=en > It looks like F-Droid does not have any apps matching your search string "grayjay" You're using a third-party repo that allows proprietary apps. The real F-Droid only allows FOSS ones.
- nalinidash 2y ago
  It should be written like "available as a f-droid repo"

moeffju 2y ago

Maybe F-Droid should just call their official blessed repo "F-Repo" to end the confusion, because this is clearly available through F-Droid, just not in the F-Droid official repo...

lrvick 2y ago
Being able to side-load a random unsigned binary via the fdroid app, or getting it from the F-Droid repository where they do independently signed (and ideally reproducible) builds, are very different things. The F-droid team does not have a high bar to be dicks. They do it to ensure their users get binaries that match the published code to prevent increasingly supply chain attacks. The standards are there for good reason, and if you do not understand those reasons, then use a license that allows the people that do understand to distribute your software for you. Very very few software engineers understand supply chain attacks or how to prevent them.