Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
Вынужден повторить еще раз: мы строго
против включения приложения под названием
EBookDroid в ваш проект. Основание - вы
выкладываете нечто с именами известных
программ под своей подписью.
Со своими проблемами мы разберемся сами.
И еще: подписывайтесь настоящим именем.
Аноним хуже пидораса.
Original comment by Alexander.V.Kasatkin@gmail.com
on 21 Feb 2012 at 8:37
Кстати, с чем связано такое резкое
изменение языка, тона, и и удаление
сообщений?
К сожалению или к счастью, отношения вашего
проекта с его пользователями (любыми, в том
числе и проектом F-Droid) регламентируется
лицензией, которую вы (как проект) сами же и
выбрали. Впрочем, как мы знаем, выбора особо
и не было, ну кроме ухода в варез, что блещет
новизной. Это одновременно и боль, и
гениальность открытого программного
обеспечения. Например, может быть, авторам
MuPDF или DjVuLibre тоже не нравитесь лично Вы и
Ваш мат, но они оставляют Вам право делать
на основе их продукта ваш. При том, без их
продуктов вашего бы и не было. Поэтому
попробуйте быть выше мелочности в духе
"они! используют маё!". Ну или написать PDF
рендерер сами, или лицензировать у Adobe.
Далее, по поводу F-Droid - проект строится на
тех же принципах, что и любой дистрибутив
Linux - там тоже выкладывают "известные
программы" а сверху - пишут название
дистрибутива. Кому такое не нравится - не
пишут открытые программы. Остальным либо
все равно, либо у них это в резюме записано,
на которое Google'ы, Facebook'и и даже Wexler'ы
толпятся, чтобы посмотреть. Цель опять же
та же самая что и у дистрибутивов - сделать
программы еще более известными и
доступными для пользователей.
Далее, какая подпись имеется ввиду?
Электронная? Ну конечно же, ведь чтобы ее
сделать, нужен приватный ключ, а он не
раздается, поэтому у F-Droid своя подпись, у
вас - своя. В остальном, в программах все то
же самое - в окне About оригинальные авторы,
кнопка donate, если она есть, ведет ту да же. И
есть есть какие-то пожелания, F-Droid уверен из
выслушает (обещать не могу, я просто
contribute'чусь время от времени).
Ну и насчет последнего вообще пальцем в
небо: я использую для логина свой обычный
email. Ну не такой он у меня, как у Вас, и что?
Если есть желание продуктивно и прилично
пообщаться - связаться не должно составить
проблемы.
Original comment by pmis...@gmail.com
on 21 Feb 2012 at 9:27
I found answer for this issue in the GNU license FAQ:
Can I write free software that uses non-free libraries? (#FSWithNFLibs)
If you do this, your program won't be fully usable in a free environment. If
your program depends on a non-free library to do a certain job, it cannot do
that job in the Free World. If it depends on a non-free library to run at all,
it cannot be part of a free operating system such as GNU; it is entirely off
limits to the Free World.
So please consider: can you find a way to get the job done without using this
library? Can you write a free replacement for that library?
If the program is already written using the non-free library, perhaps it is too
late to change the decision. You may as well release the program as it stands,
rather than not release it. But please mention in the README that the need for
the non-free library is a drawback, and suggest the task of changing the
program so that it does the same job without the non-free library. Please
suggest that anyone who thinks of doing substantial further work on the program
first free it from dependence on the non-free library.
So, we will try to solve this issue by fining replacement for the library, but
until then I fear that you can not use EBookDroid in your F-Droid project.
Original comment by Andrei.K...@gmail.com
on 21 Feb 2012 at 3:05
Yes, exactly, as written in FAQ. And all I wanted is suggest of such issue, not
cause alarm and strife. Thanks for paying attention to such issues.
I'm still would like understand cause of dissatisfaction with F-Droid, it is
intended first of all as a project by developers for developers, so we take
Open Source and license compliance seriously, and want to be friends with
developers besides that, because without software developers' attention such
project can't survive. So, any issues you see/improvement you may suggest -
we'd (myself in particular), would like to hear.
Original comment by pmis...@gmail.com
on 22 Feb 2012 at 10:19
Main dissatisfation: F-Droid uses not-genuine apk files, so end-user can not be
100% sure that he downloads what he want.
Why do you need to recompile applications?
Original comment by Andrei.K...@gmail.com
on 22 Feb 2012 at 11:21
I already tried to answer that question - by the same reason why Debian or
Ubuntu recompile the application they ship users. The whole idea here is that
if you trust Debian, you can trust any package it provides. Why is it important
to recompile applications? Because it's the only way to ensure that binaries
correspond to the source supplied. And people can review that source indeed
does what's advertised, and doesn't contain any malicious code and backdoors.
Of course, such review is barely possible with binaries.
And you talk "genuine apks", but how do you know that randomly downloaded
hundreds of apks from hundreds of different sources on the Internet are
"genuine"? How do you know that particular software author is not black hat
which planted a worm or steals personal info? How do you know that none of
these hundreds source has a virus in their system which doesn't infect APKs
with backdoors without them even knowing that?
The solution is a written in the beginning - centralized entity is established,
which is entrusted to do the compilation (and code review of course, to make
sure that malicious or otherwise non-compliant code doesn't get into). That's
what Debian, Ubuntu, other distros do for Linux packages, that's what F-Droid
wants to establish for Android - trusted community source of readily usable
package.
So, why would you trust Debian or F-Droid? Because they work in open manner,
the code is Open Source, everyone is welcome to share new ideas and work
towards implementing them. But what's important is that you don't have to trust
them! You can just take their open code, review it yourself for quality, make
any changes you deem necessary, compile on your own, and use only those
packages.
The ideas above are the essence of Open Source. The code is Open not when users
allowed to look at it, but when they are allowed to do anything with it, that's
what GPL and other Open Sources licenses warrants to users. Then next natural
step to recompile it, then to figure out that it's not so easy to do that
single-person for hundreds/thousands of packages, so get together to establish
a trusted community.
Original comment by paul.sok...@linaro.org
on 22 Feb 2012 at 1:11
Fixed as using binary unrar from www.rarlab.com
Original comment by Andrei.K...@gmail.com
on 23 Feb 2012 at 8:16
Great work! As for F-Droid issues, let me open another bug regarding that some
time later. In the meantime, we're considering how we can improve to not stomp
on independent developers' releases.
Original comment by pmis...@gmail.com
on 23 Feb 2012 at 9:48
I don't see the conclusion here: Is it ok for F-droid.org to distribute apks
it builds itself with this "binary unrar", (which I can't seem to find mention
of in the source code)? Anyway, there are technical difficulties with providing
seamless updates for multi-apk apps and in this case there probably would need
to be improvements in the F-droid client before the app should be included.
Original comment by david8bl...@gmail.com
on 6 Nov 2012 at 3:06
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
pmis...@gmail.com
on 20 Feb 2012 at 6:14