Hello @fdroidorg do you accepts apps that are licensed under the Non-Violent Public License? Your inclusion policy is not entirely conclusive on this matter, but I would guess no?

@ConnyDuck unfortunately @fdroidorg doesnt seem to care about antifacism or social justice. they keep hosting outright fascist apps even after being asked to remove them. someone started to work in a fork but i think thats paused at the moment.

As an example for a fascist app in F-Droid, you can search for "Tusky" in the app. There are three results, one of the results is the original, then theres "Free Tusky", which exist for the sole purpose of removing the block of, which the original developers added. The Tusky devs are against listing these forks, but F-Droid doesnt care.

@ConnyDuck @fdroidorg

@felix «Gab can still be accessed by other means and Tusky can be forked;» —

F-Droid = 🤎

@laterL and why do you think fdroid needs to make access to gab easy? freeze peach much?

@felix F-Droid is about FOSS. It's not about political views, SJW or anything else.

Although I may be wrong

@laterL signal is also FOSS (or so they say), but fdroid don't distribute it cause the developers don't want it. Why does fdroid consider the signal developers more important than the tusky developers?

@felix @laterL I mean in all honesty if Tusky has a trademark and threatens to enforce it I bet they wouldn't. And there's also the problem of Signal being a centralized service and one could see Moxie & Co banning users of an F-Droid version.

Not to wholly defend F-Droid's position here, I still personally think they're making the wrong decision in both cases, I can just kindof see how the divergence in details led to the divergent responses.

@keithzg @laterL but that's exactly the problem, they only care because there is a company with money behind signal. How is a small open source project run by volunteers supposed to get a trademark?

@laterL @felix
> It’s not about political

– Including only Free Software is political.
– Them compiling the software themselves is political.
– Removing non free libraries is political.
– Explicitly tagging apps which promotes non free services, with non free assets, which propose non free add-ons, is political.

Obviously we can pretend that Free Software has nothing to do with power, user’s freedom or privacy, but then you just call it Open Source and don’t bother with F-Droid.

@laterL @felix I mean the very invention of Free Software was political (just look at the history of Free Software, GNU and the FSF). And then:

> The term "open source" was first proposed by a group of people in the free software movement who were critical of the political agenda and moral philosophy implied in the term "free software" and sought to reframe the discourse to reflect a more commercially minded position.

@leifurhauks i know, this is a general explanation because i'm sure not everyone has heard about this yet.

@felix @ConnyDuck @fdroidorg

Librem is also a supporter of fascism as well. The company is previously known for attempting to market privacy-focuses hardware which took years for them to ship the first prototypes. Some never even got the hardware they purchased and were never refunded.

The company now is pivoting towards "free-speech" cloud platform apps using dogwhistles to market their products to fashy types.

Their newest scam in a "made in the USA" phone that costs $2000.

@felix @ConnyDuck @fdroidorg Well they ended up removing Splinster at least, which was the only one doing explicit propaganda about an instance promoting oppression over a marginalized group.

Well sadly, as you point out, there’s still those forks of Tusky… (I’m thinking about Librem Social too)

@ariasuni @ConnyDuck @fdroidorg I'm surprised to hear that, must have taken them at least a year.

@felix @ConnyDuck @fdroidorg Well, the application was available for a month:

new app: Spinster (11 November 2019)

remove spinster app (15 December 2019)

At some point, I guess some people noticed that F-Droid was hosting an app explicitly promoting a social networks dedicated to hate speech, so a lot of people got angry. It took them a few weeks for the application to be removed because as far as I know, there wasn’t a consensus on F-Droid’s side.

@LogicalDash @ConnyDuck @fdroidorg @fsf It's not for us in F-Droid to decided. You can write to FSF for reviewing that license.

@danialbehzadi @ConnyDuck @fdroidorg @fsf If the answer is that you *won't* accept any software with a license that *isn't* in the FSF's list, such as the NVL, then say that

@danialbehzadi @ConnyDuck @fdroidorg @fsf it's definitely for you to decide, though. It's not like the FSF has a patent on the concept of free software

@danialbehzadi @ConnyDuck @fdroidorg @fsf further, reasonable people may disagree on whether a particular license falls under the FSF's definition of free software, and you're under no obligation to take the FSF's side in such an argument, either

@danialbehzadi It's not for you to decide what Apps you host? Now this is a weak response if ever there was one.

@ConnyDuck I think the current inclusion policy is: the app (not necessarily all assets though) needs to be under an OSI or FSF approved license.

@fdroidorg Is there a way to discuss this policy or can exceptions be made?

@ConnyDuck @fdroidorg Why would you want to include proprietary software in a free software repository?


I think it's important to understand that free software is a movement which strives to enable/protect user rights. Ultimately this means devs surrender their IP-rights and thereby instead of exercising their power over users transfer power to users. The role of licenses here is to make this power-transfer future-proof and legally binding.

@fdroidorg like many other projects is built on this fundamental agreement to empower users.

Sign in to participate in the conversation – a Fediverse instance for & by the Chaos community