Also: Pindroid aka pinboard depends on a paid account (#2478) ¡ Issues ¡ F-Droid / Data ¡ GitLab
I think it would make sense to mark apps which have a Paywall or Partial Paywall transparently for users. But itâs not really an Anti-Feature in my opinion.
(Donât get me wrong, personally I dislike paywalls a great deal, but Iâm trying to be objective here. Not all devs have the privilege to give their work away gratis. If this is what it takes for them to make a living we canât change that either. I think itâs still okay to give them a platform here, after all they decided to provide a free software client, which is a step in the right direction. For non-tech savvy users this probably is a good thing too. A streamlined consumer experience by definition requires no knowledge about protocols, hosting, etc. and I think F-Droid should also have something to offer to those people.)
The free license is not meant as free as in beer, but as free as in speach. So having to pay for some features is in no way contrary to the license.
Is there an anti-feature tag for nagware/begware? For example for apps that display nuisance dialogs until/unless you pay.
Making/ maintaining an app costs a lot of time
Money is a sensitive topic. The powers that be will go a long, long way (i.e. use logic acrobatics) to avoid tagging apps with nags or begs or premium features. It depends what your definition of Ads adds up to.
.
Itâs not even about money. It is more fundamentally about freedom and extortion. There needs to be a sensible policy for the following reasons:
- For example with Fair Email, itâs not fair (pun not intended) to see "promotes nonfree network servicesâ on free apps and allow apps to promote non free SOFTWARE. Itâs not fair to label apps with NonFreeAdd tags for non free addons but allow apps to propose promote and ask you to replace the ENTIRE app with a nonfree version.
- Nag/beg screens in general (and by that I donât mean on initial run but recurring ones) are literal anti-features. By that I mean that most of the tags are philosophical anti-features. But a nagware screen is literally putting in functionality that reduces the usability of the software. The nag screen has no intrinsic purpose other than to annoy. Software that threatens to annoy you unless you pay (and worse annoy you until you get a non-free version) isa literal AND philosophical anti feature.
F-droid can instutute charging for apps, thatâs fine with me if app writers want to do that. But threatening to return daily/weekly/monthly and knock on my door until I agree to switch to a version of the app which reduces my freedom is not acceptable.
Fair Email for one, and there are others, needs NonFreeAdd today and the institution of another better tag tomorow.
You can create a fork and remove the dialogs if you donât like it. At the end itâs still open source and anyone can do what they want with it if they donât like the general direction.
Thatâs 100% not the point. Or, rather, if it were the point then it would also be the point for every anti-feature tag on every f-droid listing. Well, you can just fork Osmand and take out the non-free plugins, so we shouldnât apply the NonFreeAdd tag to it.
So no, thatâs not the point. We donât consider the anti feature tag applied to a hypothetical fork that doesnât have the anti-feature. We consider it for the software as it currently exists. And as âFair Emailâ currently exists, it promotes non-free addons by repeatedly and infinitely promoting a non-free version of itself with added features.
@Kurt
Why are you so upset with people that spend hundreds if not thousands of hours working on a project, which they then give away for free.
How do you expect them to put food on the table? or a roof over their head?
In the case of Simple apps and FairEmail, the features are indeed free as in freedom.
I believe you misunderstand what the free software movement is about. Free here refers to freedom, not price:
âFree softwareâ means software that respects usersâ freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, âfree softwareâ is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of âfreeâ as in âfree speech,â not as in âfree beer.â We sometimes call it âlibre software,â borrowing the French or Spanish word for âfreeâ as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.
Whether or not the software costs money is completely irrelevant. In FairEmail, all of the code that runs on your device is free software, including the âpro features,â and itâs possible to turn on said âpro featuresâ by changing the code and modifying it yourself. If FairEmail actually did advertise a proprietary version as the âpro versionâ then it would deserve NonFreeAdd antifeature.
The thank you app that unlocks simple mobile apps can also be downloaded for free from F-droid.
Theyâre is also a fork of fairmail called simpleemail.
I have never seen FairEmail promote non-free software. Buying a license doesnât replace the app, it just makes some of the code paths that check if you have a license return true instead of false. Itâs still the exact same GPLv3+ code.
And that stopped updating because develoment is soo easy or just the opposite?
Yes, Marcel is a robot, he churns commits after commits daily, incredible.
Sorry if it wasnât clear but I meant my comment to show how accomodating the Dev is that even the âproâ version is available for free.
Philosophical considerations aside, as a user I want:
- very clear indication which features are payfeatures
- a rule that free features wonât become payfeatures by a simple upgrade. This is very important because unfortunately in Android once you upgrade you have not usually the option to revert to a an earlier version or different fork without loosing all your app data, so in theory an app author could lock you out of your data.
And - I think âpayfeaturesâ would be a suitable neutral label.
I would argue FairEmail has that in the metadata they provide, see âPro Featuresâ: FairEmail | F-Droid - Free and Open Source Android App Repository
In theory this makes sense, in practice this is very hard to enforce. Some issues I see is that it would require thorough review of every app update (which we simply donât have enough people for) and the fact that sometimes features disappear in apps in general because of refactoring or because almost nobody uses a feature and the developer decides to remove it to keep the codebase easier to maintain.
Fair enough. I assumed the pay-app was non-free. So that alleviates 50% of my concern. The other 50%, though, still exists. The nag screen is still a literal anti-feature and as such deserves the tag.
I have no problem with an app charging up front. Pay or you canât download it. I have no problem with an app asking for donations when you install it on the first-run âAbout this appâ popup a lot of apps have. I have a lot of problems when an app refuses to honor my decision.
Iâm not suggesting the they be delisted from F-Droid. Or, maybe I should be. Maybe thatâs what is takes is demanding that these apps be delisted so that they can get tagged with anti-features as a compromise. I donât like taking extreme views in order for reasonable and moderate actions to get taken. But what does it take, when philosophical anti-features are tagged, and literal ones arenât?
Which app has a nagscreen? Surely you donât mean Fairemail which has a small text on top and allows you to even hide that small text.
Iâve used fairemail for several months and even in the gratis version it works perfectly (to tell the truth, I donât even remember which functions require payment).