Post B7uMf3IWFOLIna053I by gryphonmyers@mastodon.social
 (DIR) More posts by gryphonmyers@mastodon.social
 (DIR) Post #B7uMf2pRzT5fLQOrk8 by gryphonmyers@mastodon.social
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       I'm about to release an app I've been working on. I kinda need money so it is going on the Play Store with a small IAP, but beyond that, I'm wondering how I might be able to cater to the FOSS community. I am wary of making the source code public as I don't want to deal with the attendant disamenities (slopforks, bot harassment, feeding the Torment Nexus). I've seen some discussion of "source available" as an alternative and I'm intrigued. Any good examples or resources to read up on it?
       
 (DIR) Post #B7uMf37AvZGiEOh1N2 by arthfach@arthfach.com
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @gryphonmyers How about also offering it on F-Droid, perhaps with a delayed release pattern? You don't have to share the source but it's still a nod to the FOSS community.
       
 (DIR) Post #B7uMf3IWFOLIna053I by gryphonmyers@mastodon.social
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @Arthfach F-Droid's inclusion policy states that submissions must have a "public source code repository and a FOSS license file." I am no expert about this stuff hence my asking about it but idk if a "source available" project even meets this requirement? I believe source available can be GPL-compatible but is it considered "public" if people have to request the source from you?
       
 (DIR) Post #B7uMf3VdScpnSG8YUq by arthfach@arthfach.com
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @gryphonmyers Hm. That might be something to ask @IzzyOnDroid - they run a repository and would have a lot of knowledge on what the exact requirements are for F-Droid releases.
       
 (DIR) Post #B7uMf3gcnlco0LHKcq by IzzyOnDroid@floss.social
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @arthfach @gryphonmyers "source available" doesn't classify as F/LOSS. See https://spdx.org/licenses/ and "filter" it down to licenses approved by FSF and/or OSI. If none of the two approved it, it's not accepted. Not by IzzyOnDroid either, btw.
       
 (DIR) Post #B7uRis6CKEUmzmsTei by gryphonmyers@mastodon.social
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @IzzyOnDroid @Arthfach thanks for that! I'm reading https://spdx.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0-or-later.html and it states "you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it." Does this not seem to imply that it is compatible with a source available mechanism? Am I misunderstanding what people mean when they say source available?
       
 (DIR) Post #B7uSGmiqp0O0AN81jc by IzzyOnDroid@floss.social
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @gryphonmyers @arthfach see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software#Four_essential_freedoms_of_free_software – "source available" does not grant them (especially not freedom-3), it remains "all rights reserved". What you quote is just one part of it (the one for the distributor, by the way, who can charge for the "distribution efforts" – like data medium, shipping costs, etc).