Hi there
Not sure if my concern/suggestion would be better raised on GitHub?
Cryptomator is a valuable and important app. And even open source which is great.
But “Cryptomator requires a license key” and therefore is essentially not free!
That means Cryptomator is not FOSS and therefore should not be listed on f-droid, “a repository of FOSS apps”.
Where did you get this error message from? When you start the app?
Maybe this is worth an Anti-Feature, but Free is not necessarily “without money involved”.
The app itself has an approved F(L)OSS license, so it’s ok to be included.
Yeah what @bene64 says, free software does not necessarily mean “free” as in “free beer”.
According to the FSFE:
Free Software can be sold, as long as the buyers are not restricted from sharing copies of the software after their purchase
No, it’s mentioned in the description.
Thanks, @bene64 and @jugendhacker, for the clarification!
@Jules you can compile your own, right?
not sure on how the key works exactly, I’m not a dev, but I’d guess that anything locked behind that key screen can be modified and “liberated”
IIUC, they check the license key against their public key. android/domain/src/main/java/org/cryptomator/domain/usecases/DoLicenseCheck.java at c994b12e341855d4851f325c40c326a932d8dcb7 · cryptomator/android · GitHub So yes, you remove that check easily.
Thanks @Licaon_Kter and @linsui for the additional info.
Apologizes for the premature logging of this issue!
I definitely should have known better - or at least should have checked my understanding. While I’ve been fully aware of the difference between free (freedom) and free (free beer), I obviously had some misunderstanding of the term FOSS (free and open-source software). I assumed the “open-source” part representing the free (freedom) character so concluded that the “free” part is in reference to free (free beer) 
I support the suggestions discussed in topic:paid-features-in-opensource-apps to inform f-droid users in a consistent way about a possible licence requirement. No need to call it anti-feature. It should be without judging the choice of a developer to go down this route opposed to donations to make the development sustainable. To make it easily recognizable for f-droid users would still help a lot. The detective work that sometimes needs to be done with GooglePlay apps to find out limitations/differences between the free part and the paid features/licence requirements is more than annoying and a waste of time. While it’s totally OK for me that a developer decides to go with a certain marketing concept, it’s not OK with me trying to hide it and lure people into installing the app by instilling wrong expectations. A bad start for a potential customer/supplier relationship…