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.<p>Edit: It’s the fdroid IRC mod not fdroid leadership. My mistake!
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.<p>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 <i>so</i> 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.<p>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.)
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.
Here is the TOS: <a href="https://github.com/deckerst/aves/blob/main/assets/terms.md">https://github.com/deckerst/aves/blob/main/assets/terms.md</a>
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.<p>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..."
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.<p>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.
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?
So, do they run into problems with anything that uses JSON?<p>(JSON has a clause in their license: "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.")
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<p>"I'm not a lawyer and I'm not interested in this kind of issues.<p>If you think the app, as it is with its terms, should be removed from F-Droid, feel free to reach out to them."
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?
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.
> 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.<p>This is all I needed to see to know that the upstream developer is in the wrong.
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.
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.
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.<p><a href="https://github.com/deckerst/aves/issues/517">https://github.com/deckerst/aves/issues/517</a>