Create a bat-signal style light to summon Richard Stallman
this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
146 points (96.2% liked)
Open Source
31133 readers
431 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Just mention the "Linux operating system" and you will summon his spirit to interject
There is an even faster way: "I personally prefer vim over emacs."
(Richard that was just a dry run!)
Like Shia Labeouf from that song.
Actual Cannibal Richard Stallman!
I seriously doubt Google cares.
Google cares - if they can get a cut of the profits. They allow even scammy malware while blocking FOSS applications. Even recently, they blocked a FOSS chat app.
They don't care about the app being or not being open source
My statement was rhetorical.
This first one has a QR code linking to its source: https://github.com/niilopoutanen/rss-feed
Unless I missed it, the second doesn't claim to be open source. In any case this appears to be its source: https://github.com/maco2ou/finefeed
The first link is for read me file with no source code avaliable.
The second link is a code last updated is 2 years back, the app is still updated in the app store with no source code.
Also inside the app it says that it's GPL , with different link.
The code for the first is there, its just on other branches, they seem to have a very unusual way of using git.
That is pretty unusual, I removed it from the post to reflect this.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.en.html
the page details what one can do if they find license violations
although based on other comments in this thread it seems that the source code is available in a somewhat odd manner
For the first one, you need to change the branch, the source code is there, on either main or develop.
Someone has started a new repo for tracking these: https://github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-Source-Confusion-Cases
Not really reporting but, can spread awareness
Edit: "someone" is the developer of BookStack
I really wish there was a government institution that would care about that
The FTC takes action against false advertising.
"Open Source" doesn't have a singular legally relevant definition no matter what organizations claim otherwise, though.
But lots of false claims for products would be considered false advertising even if those attributes don't have a legal definition.
If the source isn't available at all, yeah. Which is why I brought up the FTC to begin with (since Google is in the US).
But I doubt they'd act if the license isn't permissive enough.
so the fsf should make a new term and legally trademark it and enforce breaches? someone more knowledgable email them info@fsf.org
FSF has the term 'free software', which is well defined as to what qualifies as free software. In fact, it predates the term 'open source'. OSI created the 'open source' definition based on FSF's model.
But like the term open source, there are those around with malicious vested interests who insist that these terms are generic and the publicly accepted strict definitions don't apply. Their intention is to take advantage of 'free software' and 'open source' tags without making the necessary compromises.
Any new definitions will have the same problem. The only solution is to call out the above mentioned people for dishonesty and their attempts to take advantage of FOSS definitions.
okay so who will sue them??
I don't think anyone can sue them, unless the terms 'open source' and 'free software' are trademarked. I doubt that they are. Any party can be sued for violation of licensing terms. But these definitions aren't licenses by themselves either.
Conventional wisdom is that only a copyright holder of included GPL code could go after a publisher that breaches the GPL (by claiming copyright infringement). However, recently there's been a lawsuit brought on grounds of breach of contract, which allows any user to be the plantiff.
That case is set to go to trial next month, so I guess wait and see if SFC succeeds and then, if it does, you could sue those app makers yourself and cite SFC v. Vizio as precedent.
openai naming themselves open rip
Depends what nation you are in and how you obtained it.
Anyone can release software under any licence. As long as they are not breaking the licence they release under. Or the licence they use any 3rd party code is under
I do not think GPL has any rules about claims. Just actual actions. But if they released in under another licence. Then it is possible. (But unlikely). The licence has such rules.
So in most cases. Actual actions or lack of rather then claims. Based on the licence is your only option. And that would mean contact he authors of any included code. Or FSF etc.
Some nations have advertising rules. Depending on how and where it was obtained you may be able to contact their advertising standards association equiv.
But providng for free can often weaken this. Although it is likely far from an absolute excuse to false advertising.
Note that there is not a requirement that they make their source code public, only that they provide source code to users who have received binaries. This means if this app is GPL licensed you can buy it and make a written request for the source code, and they are required by the GPL to provide it.
There is also not a requirement that the binary made available gratis. "Free" in free software or FOSS is about freedom, not price. This is a common misunderstanding of both terms.
- where does it say its open source? I do not see this anywhere. what is the stated license?
- assuming it does say this somewhere, have you attempted to contact the developer to request the source code? for example here https://app.macoou.com/inquiry What was the result?
if yes to the above and no resolution:
- could try reporting via whatever google's mechanism is; "flag as inappropriate" i guess
- could contact the SFC https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ they are the only org I am aware of that does this kind of thing as a general activity; I doubt they would be interested in this little hobby project-looking dev
- if the dev is using FLOSS code, for example which was published under GPL, and they are not complying with the license in redistribution, then you could notify the devs of the GPL code
- if you wish to pursue the matter independently you will need to find about about the dev's local jurisdiction and how to carry out a legal action there. looks like that would be japan.
I don't see where it claim to be open source, but it's permissions are.... Interesting.
I just used the Aurora store privacy analysis tool
Why the fuck does an RSS reader need microphone access?
wait what tool?
Looks like they use https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/413593/
(Edited to be the app in the OP)