F-Droid arbitration panel => Antifeatures - how are they decided?


I am wondering who is deciding what deserves to be anti featured and what not?

Is there some process for appeal in place?


Good question, which is related to my post on Mastodon: Mastodon anti-features?


same with my app, its flagged as non free network service as it downloads podcasts from BBC.

If BBC is not free, than what is free?

Free as in FREEDOM

does bbc.com publish the source code to their website and rss services?

Please name me a few free network news and rss services, so that I can understand better.

You read Anti-Features | F-Droid - Free and Open Source Android App Repository and ask yourself, does this anti feature apply to this app? Yes? No? Why?

AFAIK Mastodon uses the same network services as Tusky, however Mastodon is marked as having an anti-featurefor relying on non-free network services whereas Tusky is not marked as such. Am I missing something here?

Depends/promotes/connects continously on this hard-coded server: api.joinmastodon.org

See mastodon-android/GetCatalogInstances.java at v1.2.3 · mastodon/mastodon-android · GitHub

Also fyi allow Anti-Features to include localized descriptions about why they were added (!1350) · Merge requests · F-Droid / fdroidserver · GitLab

1 Like

@Licaon_Kter, is the source code of api.joinmastodon.org closed source? In any case, this looks like more of a tracking issue to me than a non-free network issue.

as the antifeatures page says, the user is not free to change it.

It’s not only about the freedom of the server software, or server data.

is the source code of api.joinmastodon.org closed source?

Feel free to find it… and see if they also apply “selection” to the server list (ahem-censorship-ahem) :slight_smile:

For me all this reasoning is not acceptable.

It is unfair and against the values of an open society to flag the access to bbc website with an anti feature.

I would like to know if there is some sort of arbitration panel in place.

What impact does this flag have to your freedoms exactly?

/PS: BBC is a state controlled media agency funded by forced taxation of the people. Calling it “public” or “open” feels odd. :person_shrugging:


should org.mfri.bbcworldservicepodcastdownloader have NonFreeAssets too for the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licensed app icon?

Added, thanks

I’m not related in any way to F-Droid, but I consider them to have all the rights in the world (within legal limits) to label apps in their catalog any way they want. You have no obligation to use their services, and their labeling does not even exclude your app from their catalog.

I see your point. My main concern - FWIW - is that anti-features pinpoint the main issues with an app, and tracking - IMHO - is far more toxic than the fact that the server to which the app connects is potentially non-free. Browser app don’t necessarily have anti-features, but it’s very hard to use them without relying on non-free network services. Just FWIW… :wink:

We know :slight_smile:

But, I am free to point my browser to my own server, I can’t point the BBC/Telegram/Quicksy/Taz/LeMonde/Twitter/etc app to a different server. I am stuck with a certain one. If I don’t want my device to connect to said server… my only option is to avoid using it.

I repeat myself, sorry… :stuck_out_tongue:

Of course BBC is unfree, it is doing geo blocking among other things. It is paid by UK subscribers and should serve them. If I were UK fee payer I might also have reservations if my fees were used to finance movies or sport events for foreign viewers.

This is the unfortunate reality, most things are not free.

But oftentimes I think the “non free” services could be a bit more differentiated. I would certainly see a big difference between say BBC and Facebook.

However this distinction is not easy to do. Facebook even though evil commercial is publishing a large share of their source code and actively contributing to many OS projects, something that BBC is not so well known for.

It is: No license found · Issue #323 · mastodon/joinmastodon · GitHub

Can confirm the same as the issue states, no LICENSE file anywhere in the repo.