| 28 Sep 2021 |
 cde | App includes some binaries - NonFreeAssets - still somewhat easier to understand? | 16:29:03 |
| cde | Same with Ads / Trackers / even NSFW / no source / etc. | 16:29:21 |
![@_oftc_Licaon_Kter[xmpp]:matrix.org](./avatar/Licaon_Kter%5Bxmpp%5D) Licaon_Kter[xmpp] | εΉΈη« (πππΎπ/πππΎπ): I'll need to attend to this sooner rahher than later | 16:30:00 |
| Licaon_Kter[xmpp] | https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroiddata/-/issues/553 | 16:30:01 |
 εΉΈη« (πππΎπ/πππΎπ) | Licaon_Kter[xmpp]: afaik we have permission to use the name and logo for the f-droid build. | 16:31:02 |
| εΉΈη« (πππΎπ/πππΎπ) | but the wording suggests that the logo is not just trademarked, but also non-free. | 16:31:40 |
| cde | if something is so confusing that even we can't decide on one interpretation, think about the average user. | 16:33:49 |
| Licaon_Kter[xmpp] | εΉΈη« (πππΎπ/πππΎπ): so any-other-random anon, trying to build the same app would need to do what? | 16:34:28 |
| Licaon_Kter[xmpp] | *not F-Droid I mean | 16:34:39 |
| εΉΈη« (πππΎπ/πππΎπ) | I think NonFreeNet should be pretty easy: the server code is not free software. but there are obviously related issues that aren't covered by that, which (if important enough) may need their own AF. | 16:36:33 |
| εΉΈη« (πππΎπ/πππΎπ) | Licaon_Kter[xmpp]: replace the logo and name? like we need to to for Fennec? | 16:37:00 |
| εΉΈη« (πππΎπ/πππΎπ) | (though afaik the case w/ fennec is solely trademark-related) | 16:37:20 |
| Licaon_Kter[xmpp] | So their are granting some freedom to F-Droid but not in general? | 16:37:40 |
 Sylvia | Well, yes, but that is good for the end user | 16:38:51 |
| Sylvia | Users want to be sure that if they download Wire they get... Wire | 16:38:58 |
| Sylvia | Not some weird modified thing not clearly marked as such | 16:39:14 |
| Sylvia | We do the same with F-Droid itself | 16:39:21 |
| εΉΈη« (πππΎπ/πππΎπ) | the f-droid logo is CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported + GPLv3 dual-licensed. but that's copyright on the SVG, not related to any trademarks. | 16:41:17 |
| Sylvia | Having to chance the name and logo if you go and modify is just... normal honestly | 16:42:03 |
| εΉΈη« (πππΎπ/πππΎπ) | agreed. | 16:44:35 |
| Sylvia | * Having to change the name and logo if you go and modify is just... normal honestly | 16:44:47 |
| εΉΈη« (πππΎπ/πππΎπ) | but do we consider a non-free logo a non-free asset? (even if trademarks would forbid use for modified versions anyway even if the logo were GPL or CC) | 16:45:47 |
| εΉΈη« (πππΎπ/πππΎπ) | but how small a modification counts? if the f-droid build is not 100% binary identical to upstream, is it "modified"? or if we only remove some non-free dependency? | 16:48:11 |
| εΉΈη« (πππΎπ/πππΎπ) | clearly debian doesn't rename all packages that have patches. which would indeed be overkill. | 16:48:58 |
| εΉΈη« (πππΎπ/πππΎπ) | but iirc debian had neomutt (which started out as a collection of patches) as the mutt package for a while and had to switch back because there were so many patches that it wasn't reasonable to use the same name any more. | 16:51:01 |
| εΉΈη« (πππΎπ/πππΎπ) | anyway, thx for the feedback :) | 16:51:32 |
 jochensp | Debian still has mutt and neomutt | 18:35:52 |
| jochensp | and normally we see something as non free if the license is only for a specific group (like F-Droid) and I would argue that we should not accept such apps | 18:36:58 |
| Licaon_Kter[xmpp] | https://tutanota.com/blog/posts/tutanota-for-open-source-teams/ | 18:40:17 |
| εΉΈη« (πππΎπ/πππΎπ) | In reply to @_oftc_jochensp:matrix.org
Debian still has mutt and neomutt yes, but for a while the "mutt" package was actually neomutt. | 18:49:36 |
