In today’s economy, if you don’t pay for your oss apps they might be sold to the highest bidder at some point.
I paid for these apps, and supported the author on Patreon.
Simple Mobile Tools suite to be acquired by Israeli adware company
31–40 of 88 posts
Re: Simple Mobile Tools suite to be acquired by Israeli adware company
#32Concerning to see that the author does not realize they cannot relicense GPL code without contributor consent.
They "can" because nothing will happen to them. Is anyone really going to sue?
Re: Simple Mobile Tools suite to be acquired by Israeli adware company
#33Developer mentions the abysmal state of Android development and where it's headed as one cause in a comment. That's honestly relatable. Some of those apps are the best available on the platform (the pro gallery especially so), I'm sure the fork will do fine even in maintenance mode as it's mostly feature complete. F-Droid may be slow with releases and have a few annoyances but it remains the best and most trustworthy store—on Google's you'd never see this coming until the incoming ad/spyware is installed on your phone, those acquisitions are predatory with user data.
Re: Simple Mobile Tools suite to be acquired by Israeli adware company
#34Oh, no. I liked those tools, but I don't let them update since they started having "premium versions". The web site still says "A group of simple, open source Android apps without ads and unnecessary permissions, with customizable colors." They're on F-Droid.
> Oh, no. I liked those tools, but I don't let them update since they started having "premium versions". Expecting project maintainers to solely fund the development of open source projects used by millions of people is the leopard that keeps eating our faces.
Somehow this leopard only exists on systems like Android and Google Play Store or web browser extension stores, but notably not in places like F-Droid or the repos of any common GNU/Linux distribution.
"Leopard eats face" is a dumb reddit thought-terminating cliche. I invite you to actually think about the problem and ask yourself why developers of FOSS tools selling out happens in some domains but not others, and effects some users without warning but not others.
Re: Simple Mobile Tools suite to be acquired by Israeli adware company
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Oh, no. I liked those tools, but I don't let them update since they started having "premium versions". Expecting project maintainers to solely fund the development of open source projects used by millions of people is the leopard that keeps eating our faces.
Exactly what kind of funding does it need? I suspect you’re mistaking commercial companies pretending to be doing open source with actual community-driven open source.
> Exactly what kind of funding does it need?
I assume your time also has value. Open source software does not have to be shared free of charge, especially not when you need to invest your time and money to package and distribute the software and offer support for the project. The kind of puritan definition of open source that you're alluding to is only playing into the hands of the megacorps that are exploiting their users.
People deserve to be compensated for their work, especially when their work finds an active audience, even if they maintain an open source project.
Re: Simple Mobile Tools suite to be acquired by Israeli adware company
#36Is the f-droid account part of the sale too? Will f-droid users be compromised?
F-Droid works like the Debian repos: F-Droid builds are not built by the developer, they are built by F-Droid volunteers from source. They don't accept pre-built applications.
Re: Simple Mobile Tools suite to be acquired by Israeli adware company
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly what kind of funding does it need? I suspect you’re mistaking commercial companies pretending to be doing open source with actual community-driven open source.
> Exactly what kind of funding does it need? I assume your time also has value. Open source software does not have to be shared free of charge, especially not when you need to invest your time and money to package and distribute the software and offer support for the project. The kind of puritan definition of open source that you're alluding to is only playing into the hands of the megacorps that are exploiting their…
So again, how many man-hours does it take, monthly, to maintain those apps? Note that I’m a programmer myself and so I’m not asking about the usual enterprise-level fake numbers.
Also, while open source definitely needs some funding, it can become badly harmed by too much of it, when code becomes developed purely for money and not for the usual ESR’s open source incentives.
Re: Simple Mobile Tools suite to be acquired by Israeli adware company
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Oh, no. I liked those tools, but I don't let them update since they started having "premium versions". Expecting project maintainers to solely fund the development of open source projects used by millions of people is the leopard that keeps eating our faces.
Somehow this leopard only exists on systems like Android and Google Play Store or web browser extension stores, but notably not in places like F-Droid or the repos of any common GNU/Linux distribution. "Leopard eats face" is a dumb reddit thought-terminating cliche. I invite you to actually think about the problem and ask yourself why developers of FOSS tools selling out happens in some domains but not others, and ef…
Some of the largest projects on F-Droid are all funded either by having a paid version on Google Play, accepting donations, or a company funding their development by hiring the maintainers. Most of the software you can install from a distro repository are also developed in large part by people that are compensated in some form, if the project requires continued development.
Money always ends up in the equation when you have to invest years of your life maintaining and supporting a project. And that's perfectly fine and healthy, because it means you can find a path that does not result in either side being exploited.
As for your last point, I was not responding to developers selling out their users, which is unfortunate, but to the expectation to not have a premium/paid version of a software project distributed. I think the developer even shared the pro version for free on F-Droid (OsmAnd does the same), yet the existence of a paid version was regarded as something negative by the user above.
If you're uncomfortable with the taught of you or at least someone else funding the development of the software you use, you're only setting yourself up to be exploited.
Re: Simple Mobile Tools suite to be acquired by Israeli adware company
#39Concerning to see that the author does not realize they cannot relicense GPL code without contributor consent.
They "can" because nothing will happen to them. Is anyone really going to sue?
Not to the guy that sold, no. I expect if the new owners try to change the license people will actually care though on the principle of the matter.
Re: Simple Mobile Tools suite to be acquired by Israeli adware company
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somehow this leopard only exists on systems like Android and Google Play Store or web browser extension stores, but notably not in places like F-Droid or the repos of any common GNU/Linux distribution. "Leopard eats face" is a dumb reddit thought-terminating cliche. I invite you to actually think about the problem and ask yourself why developers of FOSS tools selling out happens in some domains but not others, and ef…
Some of the largest projects on F-Droid are all funded either by having a paid version on Google Play, accepting donations, or a company funding their development by hiring the maintainers. Most of the software you can install from a distro repository are also developed in large part by people that are compensated in some form, if the project requires continued development. Money always ends up in the equation when y…
You're missing a big part of the equation: the leopard exists in places where developers can push updates directly to users with minimal if any oversight from commercially independent reviewers. Debian and F-Droid build packages from source given to them by the developers, they don't trust developer builds. Therefore even though these Simple apps have sold to a malware company, that company won't be able to push updates to users. On platforms where this leopard is common, there may be some lip service paid to review but it's almost always completely automated or performed by low-skill contract labor who have no personal commitment to the process.
Another aspect of leopard territory is API churn. On Android and to a lesser extent browser extensions, regular rebuilds are necessary to keep the application up to date. This sometimes necessitates reworking parts of the application, not just rebuilding it. This recurring chore places a constant burden on developers, they can't "finish" an application then forget about it and move on with their lives; doing so would see their work vanish. On the other hand, on GNU/Linux desktops it's perfectly feasible to "finish" an application and leave it unmaintained for 15 years, people will still be able to use it. And on Android with F-Droid, most of the burden of rebuilding applications to keep them running is taken on by F-Droid volunteers, reducing the burnout pressure on application developers.
The conclusion is simple: Strict separation of the developer and packager/distributor roles keeps the leopard away.