Mastodawn

SamusBeckett Mar 27

For almost two years, users searching for Organic Maps on F-Droid have been unable to install the app due to a bug (or due to someone's deliberate choice?).
Many users have reported this issue to us. They do not understand why it happens. The bug is still there, and F-Droid maintainers don't care: https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroidclient/-/work_items/2850

@organicmaps I had no problems on Lineage using FDroid nor on /e/OS AppLounge that also uses FDroid repo as far as I know...

♿ 🏳️‍🌈 La pantera roja Mar 27

@organicmaps I use Neostore, and can find the app without issues.

(Uninstalled to try the search).

@organicmaps I installed it through f-droid and I get regular updates.

cocolino Mar 27

@organicmaps Can't reproduce

Organic Maps Mar 27

@cocolino You enabled that checkbox in settings, contrary to many F-Droid users who have this checkbox disabled.

cocolino Mar 27

@organicmaps For me the checkbox was ticked by default 🤷‍♂️. Organic Maps is very beautiful by the way, I use it every day 🙇

Guillaume Mar 30

@organicmaps @cocolino In which case they wouldn't want to see it, would they ? I know I don't

Kalle Kniivilä Mar 27

@organicmaps Seriously? I never have had any problems.

🤔

I don't think it is a bug - the answer is included in your screenshot

"Some results were hidden based on your antifeature settings"

According to fdroid, Organic Maps has some antifeatures, as can be seen in this screenshot.

I still use Organic Maps every day and I love your project. thanks for your work :)

Organic Maps Mar 27

@snue We tested with many people. This message misleads users. Nobody we asked was able to install OM without our explanation on how to disable this unclear hint in settings. The impression was "Organic Maps was not found".

I agree with you - I think the way Fdroid handles "antifeatures" could be better :)

@organicmaps @snue Trying to understand the actualy issue here: Are you saying that:

1) @fdroidorg mislabelled OM with the one or both of the Anti-feature labels?
2) You disagree with @fdroidorg that one or both of the labels should be classified as an Anti-feature in the first place?
3) Users should be allowed on F-droid installation to pick which "Anti-features" they want to disabled?
4) Something else?

Specifically, are you saying that the mwm maps files are licensed under a Free license?

I think the network "Anti-feature" can be avoided by making the download instance selectable or having a blank textbox where users can enter an alternative server or cdn instead of the OM one?

Or are you opposed to doing that and want users to be tied to #OrganicMaps servers?

I see also that the #CoMaps fork does not have either of these two "Anti-feature" labels applied? Hey @CoMaps how did you escape those two labels - would honestly like to know.

Btw, I love Organic Maps and use it on Linux Mobile. I'm hope that this issue will be resolved so you can perhaps focus on the desktop version :) Flathub does not hide OM btw!

#Fdroid #Antifeature #Antifeatures

Julian Groß Mar 29

@opensourceopenmind @organicmaps I just quickly checked and @CoMaps just gives you the option to put in a custom server. Considering they have the same license, you could probably even cherry-pick the commit.

I get the frustration with this and I get if there is a certain feeling of harassment. I myself feel the same way about Flathub (I know we are talking about F-Droid here), but they make the rules. Plenty of people consider not being able to change the server an anti-feature. While I personally couldn't care less on an open-source offline navigation app, it is trivial enough to just make the URL configurable.

If you want the F-Droid people to treat you well, you got to do the same to them.

Matthias R. Koch Mar 27

No problem on searching, finding and installing on F-Droid.

Organic Maps is marked with attached security advice, so if users configure strict matching they probably can't proceed...

Organic Maps Mar 27

@manankanchu it works for you, because you have changed that setting.

BTW, F-Droid deliberately misinforms users by labeling Organic Maps as such:
1. Our binary files are free assets and can be used by anyone. They are under a FOSS license that requires proper attribution.
2. The fact that the app downloads its maps from the app's CDN does not make the app "bad".

But that's another story/narrative pushed towards OM by some of the F-Droid guys.

Let's focus now on the installation issue.

@organicmaps @manankanchu
1. Which license are the compiled binary files available under? Is it a case of "open" but not "free" (as in freedom)?
2. I agree it doesn't make it "bad" but that's not what the label says : ) Still, you should be able to solve this easily if you want by letting people use a different server/cdn. You don't have to agree with it as I'm sure you don't agree with all Google Play and Apple Store rules.

Organic Maps Mar 28

@opensourceopenmind @manankanchu Binary data is free; it contains data from many sources with different licenses that require a proper attribution (OSM, Wikipedia, etc.). It is not something that OM invented. Calling it non-free is a plain lie to F-Droid users. Please check it yourself: https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/blob/master/DATA_LICENSE.txt

organicmaps/DATA_LICENSE.txt at master · organicmaps/organicmaps

🍃 Organic Maps is a free Android & iOS offline maps app for more than 6M travelers, tourists, hikers, and cyclists. It uses crowd-sourced OpenStreetMap data and is developed with love by the co...

GitHub

memo 📎Mar 30

Any white-labeling or rebranding use requires explicit written permission from the Organic Maps team

this is not a free license. you may feel it's a reasonable and justified clause, and i wont argue against that, however it is factually incorrect to call it free in the sense of user freedom

@opensourceopenmind @manankanchu

Organic Maps Mar 31

@memoria @opensourceopenmind @manankanchu would you please elaborate? Many free licenses require attribution, in the same way as OM requires when using its map data files. Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap.org, even FDroid icon requires attribution. Allowing to remove attribution is more freedom than disallowing it.

memo 📎Mar 31

rebranding is seperate from attribution. attribution is important, but attribution is not the issue here. It's fair and reasonable to require attribution, but rebranding is an expected result of forks and downstream projects

free licenses permit the licenser to restrict the use of their name and logo as long as it doesn't practically limit the four freedoms, however the inverse, requiring derivitives to include your branding is a violation of the freedom to modify or redistribute modified copies. a core tenant of the freedom to redistribute, with or without modification, is the right to do so without permission. requiring the user to seek your conditional permission to perform a modification is a violation of freedom 3, making it not free

@opensourceopenmind @manankanchu

Organic Maps 4d ago

@memoria @opensourceopenmind @manankanchu looks like you’ve mixed it up. Attribution = mention the project = following the license terms. Skipping attribution without explicit permission = violating the license. Anyone can take binary maps or other files and use them for whatever needs, by following the license terms.

Do Wikipedia or OpenStreetMap.org allow removing their attribution and full rebranding as a different product?

memo 📎3d ago

@organicmaps @opensourceopenmind @manankanchu

nothing you said addressed the problem i explained, which is your incorrect claim that the data license is a free license

you conflate attribution and branding while sidestepping the free license problem. the data license may be a valid license, however that does not mean it's a free license.

requirements for attribution are allowed in free licenses. your provision for persisting branding with conditional permission to modify makes it not a free license

if you won't address the free license issue and continue to change the topic to different matters, then there's no reason to continue this conversation

lina isidora | HOLY FUCK ARTEMIS II 3d ago

@memoria @organicmaps @opensourceopenmind @manankanchu im probably misunderstanding but are you saying that "attribution always required = free" and "attribution requirement can be removed by request = nonfree"?

memo 📎3d ago

@lina @organicmaps @opensourceopenmind @manankanchu

hi, i edited paragraph 3 to make it less ambiguous and more direct.

" im probably misunderstanding but are you saying that "attribution always required = free" and "attribution requirement can be removed by request = nonfree"?"

No. required attribution is good and is ubiquitous in free licenses

attribution is seperate from branding

the issue is the conditional permission to modify branding. the FSF recognizes licenses that require branding to be changed to avoid confusion between forks and derivative projects, but the FSF does not accept branding being used as a tool to effectively hinder or limit the user's freedom to modify and redistribute without permission.

lina isidora | HOLY FUCK ARTEMIS II 3d ago

@memoria @opensourceopenmind @manankanchu @organicmaps how does it infringe on the rights you’ve listed? from what i can see the no rebranding thing is a direct consequence of the - accepted - required attribution, so the clause could be removed altogether / considered redundant if not for the “you can request custom terms”. which is equivalent to the data being dual licensed, which is also prevalent in FOSS projects

lina isidora | HOLY FUCK ARTEMIS II 3d ago

@organicmaps @manankanchu @memoria @opensourceopenmind tl;dr yes rebranding is forbidden under the normal license - which is okay per your words - and they just provide a hatch to request that term to be removed by request which is the same as a lot of things do via dual licensing

memo 📎3d ago

@lina @organicmaps @manankanchu @opensourceopenmind

how does it infringe on the rights you’ve listed?

https://wetdry.world/@memoria/116325754814885427

tl;dr yes rebranding is forbidden under the normal license

yes

which is okay per your words

no

they may use whatever license they wish, that's their prerogative. it's still not a free license

memo 📎 (@[email protected])

@[email protected] rebranding is seperate from attribution. attribution is important, but attribution is not the issue here. It's fair and reasonable to require attribution, but rebranding is an expected result of forks and downstream projects free licenses permit the licenser to restrict the use of their name and logo as long as it doesn't practically limit the four freedoms, however the inverse, requiring derivitives to include your branding is a violation of the freedom to modify or redistribute modified copies. a core tenant of the freedom to redistribute, with or without modification, is the right to do so without permission. requiring the user to seek your conditional permission to perform a modification is a violation of freedom 3, making it not free @[email protected] @[email protected]

Wet-Dry World

@memoria @lina @organicmaps @manankanchu @opensourceopenmind It's "okay" (but gross and unethical and non-free) to use any valid license.

That doesn't make those valid licenses any less non-free.

Standa Lukeš Mar 31

@organicmaps
It seems to me the problem isn't that it's not free file, just that the network service is not replaceable. Maybe just adding a setting for the map file server would help?
@opensourceopenmind @manankanchu

Organic Maps Mar 31

@exyi @opensourceopenmind @manankanchu that’s complicated, the server should have a very specific version of map files, because we change/update the map data format frequently. Otherwise the client won’t work or even crash.

Standa Lukeš Mar 31

@organicmaps
Ok, I understand that. However it seems like a reasonable compromise that'd need to rebuild the maps on each app update, if you detect the version mismatch and show a reasonable error (which should be a matter of adding version number at the start of the file or filename)

Organic Maps 4d ago

@exyi so additional unusable complication… for what?

Matthias R. Koch Mar 28

" ... it works for you, because you have changed that setting."

Nope .... vanilla install

@organicmaps the bug being their donors no doubt

ffffennek Mar 28

@thejacenallen please, do have doubt.

ffffennek Mar 28

@thejacenallen ok

First comment on the issue:

Settings, Anti-Features, Other, check it
Ref: f-droid.org/2024/07/25/twif.ht… and f-droid.org/2024/04/04/twif.ht…

While other apps with ads, tracking and known vulnerabilities are visible to all users, ad-free app Organic Maps is not available by default.

Nice try, but there's no conspiracy here.;)

The anti-feature you've asked for | F-Droid - Free and Open Source Android App Repository

This Week in F-Droid TWIF curated on Thursday, 25 Jul 2024, Week 30 F-Droid core Recently, we rolled out a new AntiFeature - Tethered Network Services. It’s ...

Marcin Jasiukowicz 🅨 Mar 27

@organicmaps Interestingly, the Wikipedia app is not visible for the same reason!

@organicmaps
At this point, it would be better to install #CoMaps, as it does not contain any anti-features.
comaps.app/

Hike, Bike, Drive Offline – Navigate with Privacy

Discover more of your journey - Powered by the community

@organicmaps You can install with Obtainium App from f-droid repo or Github.

@organicmaps That's not a bug, it's the normal antifeatures filter and from my experience you have to enable that for the vast majority of things to actually be hidden...

@gamey @organicmaps Which "antifeatures" are disabled by default?

Hey @fdroidorg, do you give users the freedom to choose "antifeatures" by asking them on first install?

@opensourceopenmind @gamey @organicmaps @fdroidorg

I just tested it with a fresh new install of F-droid. The only anti-feature that is hidden is NSFW.

@Jqri @opensourceopenmind @organicmaps Yea, that's still disabled for me and I am pretty sure I didn't change anything there

@gamey @Jqri @organicmaps Then it doesn't look like that big of an issue tbh... it would be visible to users by default.

@opensourceopenmind @Jqri @organicmaps I dont think it's one tbh. People probably disable certain anti features by choice and the complain that they can't find a app including them if I had to guess. I mean, maybe the Organic Maps people will provide details on how this is a bug (F-Droid has a bunch of those so I wouldn't be surprised) but so far I don't see it.

Organic Maps Mar 28

@gamey @opensourceopenmind @Jqri that is a bug in F-Droid, and details were already provided and discussed almost two years ago. Please check the link to the discussion. The problem is that the bug arises when users _do not change the default setting_, not the opposite.

@organicmaps @gamey @opensourceopenmind

Yea I already knew that, but u make it like a bigg Problem. Users just need to change the setting

@organicmaps @gamey @Jqri I read it - If I understand correctly:
- this does not affect new users who install f-droid and search for maps
- this affected users who had f-droid installed when f-droid attached the tetherednet label to Organic Maps

Is this correct?

@opensourceopenmind @organicmaps NSFW as far as I know, that's still disabled for me and I don't think I changed anything

Fred🇺🇦Mar 28

@organicmaps I didn't see this bug. When I type "organic" there are two apps include Organic Maps. If I type "organic maps", there is only Organic Maps left in the result. F-Droid 1.23.2

starfrosch (desde 2002)Mar 28

@organicmaps Nice try, but there's no conspiracy here.

@organicmaps Bro thats no bug. A few years ago this particular anti-features section was automaticly enabled, so apps with the anti-feature "Tethered Network Services" were hidden. These apps were excluded Form search.

but there was an update that changed that. If you installed F-droid after this you will not have this Problem. And if you do, it should be easy to change the setting

ffffennek Mar 28

F-Droid works as intended. It works in a boneheaded way, but it is how they want it.
You calling this a "bug", even though you understand why it happens, makes you seem disingenuous, @organicmaps

Organic Maps Mar 28

@fennek this is 1) bad default setting issue that requires users to learn about setting and find/change the setting; 2) bad UX for the unclear message about the filtered out app. Writing something like “Press here to open Organic Maps, because it was filtered out from search by default by someone’s decision” would help users a lot.

ffffennek Mar 28

@organicmaps Agreed.

@organicmaps
Instead of shifting the blame onto @fdroidorg, you could *easily* fix this 'problem' yourself by ensuring no AF apply to your app. @CoMaps has *zero* AF. Furthermore, several people have attested here that they're not seeing the issue at all, and that the default settings only exclude the NSFW AF.

One more reason why I'm glad to have replaced Organic Maps with CoMaps.

Edit: typo

DKMellow Mar 28

@organicmaps these are the new defaults on F-Droid:

Organic Maps Mar 29

@DKMellow Good to know, thanks. Since when?