• @Prunebutt@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    109 months ago

    I saw the video. Is that really against the FOSS philosophy? I imagine that you can’t do that with e.g. the kernel either.

    The licencing they chose is a bit of a hack job, but I see the necessity. IMHO, it’s clear that they want to advance the libre software world.

    • Amju Wolf
      link
      fedilink
      39 months ago

      The difference with Linux kernel is that it’s way more complicated to persuade someone who just likes the idea of it to install it, so there’s really no protection needed - if you’re installing a custom kernel (or more likely, a whole OS using that kernel) you probably know enough not to end up downloading malware.

      That’s not so true about just providing “random” APKs.

      • @kraniax@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        39 months ago

        no need for a restrictive license! people can just take an apk and slap ads or malware on top. they do it all the time with fake candy crush apks. So I’m pretty sure they won’t care about this license.

        I think that in the license is just a excuse so no one is redistributing the app and they can make money from it.

        • @ToxicWaste@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          29 months ago

          I don’t claim to know what their true intentions are. But if you want your APK with additional malware removed from any appstore, it for sure helps to have terms which don’t allow ppl to do so.

          There is nothing wrong about wanting to earn money, but their approach is the weakest. I did not even see a dialogue asking me for money yet.