Paid features in opensource apps


#61

I think we are going back to the pricing point which I’ve already addressed in a previous comment. FLOSS is not about money, it’s about user freedom. If the server is open, I don’t think there’s a difference. Yes, it may be slightly annoying to have to run your own, and it has discouraged me from using some apps in the past, but it’s almost always about local vs remote storage rather than paid vs not paid.

As said above:

just to re-emphasise my previous point: I’m not against apps that require a server having some indicator to mark them as such. That’s why EteSync has included such wording from the very beginning. I’m just against marking it as an anti-feature (if the server is also floss) or discriminating based on a price-point (free vs $1 vs $10).

I think the wording in EteSync atm is probably fine:

In order to use this application you need to have an account with EteSync (paid hosting), or run your own instance (free and open source)

Though I think that if we are to start focusing our efforts on pushing agendas into f-droid that are not within it’s mission (i.e not related to FLOSS vs not FLOSS), we should start with privacy. Mark apps that are not end-to-end encrypted and etc. Because again, I think user freedoms are rights are much more important of a topic than apps that have an option to use paid hosting.


#62

I’m speaking from that point of view. Mobile devices are extremely
valuable in people’s lives. You can see people around the world have
mobile phones even when the nearest GSM signal and power is a 10km walk
away.


#63

I completely agree with this. But how about not just marking negative things about apps? Along with anti-features we could emphasize some neutral and positive features too. Maybe with a traffic light system like:

:green_heart: positive features:

  • actively promotes free software
  • educates about free software

:white_circle: neutral features:

  • contains advertising
  • contains pay to unlock features

:red_circle: anti features:

  • promotes non free services
  • depends on other non free software

#64

My 2c, apps with paid features should be clearly marked as such. With many apps users spend considerable time choosing the app, trying to setup and customize it and after all this work they find out that they are supposed to pay for a feature?


#65

I understand the concern. Well it’s ok that they are trying to sell some features of the app, it still does not make the app closed source. They are obviously trying to make some money for their work. I don’t know, what features aren’t there in K9 that you are looking for? What’s there in Fair Mail that is not in K9? K9 does get constant updates and I personally find it very good. In Fair Mail they simply block access to certain features using their server, that is not an issue of software freedom. Perhaps it is an issue like an email provider using open source software, yet blocking users from using all features if they don’t pay.


#66

Interesting idea, but impractical. I think it’s highly subjective whether something is a morally positive or neutral feature. As you can can see in this thread it’s even hard to find consensus about labeling paid features/services.


#67

Perhaps (optionally) list all of above attributes, & (further optionally) allow us to set color/weightings/“anti-feature” status, w/ defaults to the above set by a poll?


#68

As i wrote before, filter on per-anti-feature would be a good start to solve subjective opinions