@ConnyDuck it's still appalling that they didn't do this from the get-go.
@maloki yes, very much so
@ConnyDuck that said, I don't think we should contribute to their work in any way or shape.
@maloki Me is confused.
@mezzodrinker I mean, if we say that the link isn't in that screenshot, that is behind one of the links in it, is irrelevant
@maloki It looks like what I wanted to get across wasn't quite clear.
I meant that Tusky is credited with a link in the repo, but that doesn't quite excuse not putting the link in the about screen because hardly anyone would ever check out the repo to look for the link.
@mezzodrinker they only added it after pressure though. So it really doesn't matter.
@ConnyDuck That's a good thing, right?
@Cedara yes. They should have done this from the start though
@ConnyDuck A link to your original was still too expensive it seems. :-/ At least not a direct license violation anymore.
Purism really hasn‘t thought this whole thing through.
Would they have done it without that shitstorm 🤔
@jeybe good question
I missed that part... How did they violate the GPL?
@ConnyDuck I experienced something similar. Luckily the culprits quickly added back the original contributors information.
@ConnyDuck I would insist, that they link to your repository/website. This is the least they can do.
@ConnyDuck *golf clap* There now, was that so hard?
Do they now have the based-on projects named on their website, with links? That's important. They wouldn't even have to be on the main pages, just on the About... pages for the applications, where a person would naturally look for that info.
@leadore There is nothing on the homepage, only in their blogpost and on the in-app about page
BUT removing apps' features and hiding where they came from kills that goodwill dead for FOSS advocates, many of whom do pay to support open source over proprietary hardware/software. Lots of us would *love* to buy an open-source phone with linux on it, but not if it's locked down/secretive.
To expand on that a bit, people who would say "I can get the apps free" would also say, "I can get hosting for free", "I'm willing to find the hosting and apps myself" -- they weren't going to be Purism customers anyway.
People who /would/ pay for hosting and convenience of the apps are likely either convenience customers or FOSS advocates wanting to support a FOSS company.
Being open about the apps' origins wouldn't deter the 1st group and is mandatory for the 2nd.
@ConnyDuck Would it kill them to add a link to Tusky like they did for their own website too? Looks untidy imo
@ConnyDuck Sorry for causing you so much trouble over the past few days. I assure you we didn't have malicious intent and it was just a oversight in the process of this launch.
Outside of the notices that are in the application now, are there any places that you feel are missing appropriate attribution?
For what it's worth, we elaborate on the reasoning behind doing a fork for Librem One client apps here: https://puri.sm/posts/how-purism-works-upstream-and-gives-back/
A link to https://tusky.app/ in the beginning paragraph of the about page and everywhere you talk about the Android version of Librem Social and the same for the iOS version of Librem Social that is based on Amaroq https://github.com/ReticentJohn/Amaroq or https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/amaroq-for-mastodon/id1214116200
also you could mention the original devs hard work in that same page and have a link where people could send them a donation. I know Tusky has an open collective that would probably like to be linked to.
@kyle thx, I guess its fine now
chaos.social - because anarchy is much more fun with friends.
chaos.social is a small Mastodon instance for and by the Chaos community surrounding the Chaos Computer Club. We provide a small community space - Be excellent to each other, and have a look at what that means around here.
Follow @ordnung for low-traffic instance-related updates.
The primary instance languages are German and English.