search

BattleScribe / Release

Bug tracking for the release (live) version of BattleScribe
13 stars 2 forks source link

BattleScribe Android app via F-Droid possible? #31

Open r4dh4l opened 5 years ago

r4dh4l commented 5 years ago

Hi,

@amis92 told me to request this here: Would it be possible to provide the Android app via https://f-droid.org/ as well?

r4dh4l commented 5 years ago

...anyone? :)

OftKilted commented 5 years ago

YMMV ... but Battlescribe doesn’t appear to meet the core repository inclusion requirements https://f-droid.org/en/docs/Inclusion_Policy/ to be in the official f-droid.org repository.

r4dh4l commented 5 years ago

So which ones are the "show stopper"?

amis92 commented 5 years ago

All of them, really. It's a proprietary software using ads via proprietary libraries, integrated with Play services, source code is not public, it's built with non floss tools...

A good wuestion would rather be, which requirements does BattleScribe actually meet.

TLDR: no chance

r4dh4l commented 5 years ago

Oh, for some reason I didn't expected that. No way to make it FLOSS?

amis92 commented 5 years ago

BattleScribe is adware or paid. How can it be FOSS? You know, there is a license you accepted before using BattleScribe. ;)

r4dh4l commented 5 years ago

That's a common misunderstanding: The "free" in Free/(Libre/)Open Source Software is not the same "free" as in "free beer" but as in "free speech" or "freedom". Yes, a better term would be "freedom respecting software" and that's why the OSI invented the term "open source software" many years after the FSF, the "re-inventor" of Free Software, was founded. "Open Source" as term solved the problem not to mix "Free Software" with "Freeware" but caused another problem: There is software which you can call "open", because you can take a look into the code, but the license does not provide you the original 4 freedoms of Free Software so the more common term "open source" does not solve the problem in the end. Terms like "FOSS" or "FLOSS" want to combine both terms to express all aspects (but again: none of these aspects has something to do with "at no charge" as in "freeware").

Delevoping Free Software does not and did never mean to code something at no charge but to provide users the freedom to use, to share, to understand and to modify software. Best example for very successfull commercial FLOSS is Android because every smartphone company can take the code and adjust it however they want or communities like LineageOS can develop Android versions without the common bloatware. All these coders needs to be payed in the same way as coders of proprietary software needs to be but thanks to FLOSS the development can be done much more sustainable (best example here: the fork from OpenOffice to LibreOffice since Oracle bought Sun Microsystems).

However: Somehow I overlooked the license, especially because GitHub is in the most cases a place for developing FLOSS. My fault.

amis92 commented 5 years ago

Of course, I understand the difference. However, BattleScribe is developed by a single person (@Jonskichov) and I'd be surprised if he shared/opened the source code, no matter the actual license.

r4dh4l commented 5 years ago

I'm surprised that a program for tabletop games which relies on community support a lot (providing and reviewing the unit data) is not developed as FLOSS. I mean: What does the community using BattleScribe does if @Jonskichov just "disappears" one day (no mood/no time to continue/illness/dead - so the general things that happen to human being)...

If it works this way after the last years and the community is fine with the situation I'm shouldn't be the one to judge it in any way. It's just my personal doubt that BattleScribe can survive as proprietary "one man show" because of the mentioned very natural reasons.