is the world's most popular operating system. and @fdroidorg have demonstrated its possible to build FSF-free and DFSG-free OS based on Android and F-Droid. Replicant and F-Droid do not yet meet the standards for being fully free software yet. Both communities are working towards that core goal. The only limiting factor is developer time to make it happen. So F-Droid and Replicant (and free Android ROMs) should be designated as High Priority Projects

We're pretty sure that #FDroid and #Replicant are fully #FLOSS. Isn't #LineageOS the one with proprietary drivers?

What makes you say otherwise?

@dsfgs @guardianproject @fdroidorg Replicant is fully FOSS. But some applications in F-Droid are frontend apps for proprietary services or contain some proprietary blobs, etc.

Thanks Werwolf,

That's what we thought about Replicant, yes. We will wait for GuardianProject to tell us what they know.

Is the change about proprietary blobs in some #FDroid apps a recent one? We remember them being very strict about that sort of thing.

@guardianproject @fdroidorg

@dsfgs @guardianproject @fdroidorg

I don't know, but for example Fennec F-Droid is a libre fork of Firefox. But it can't be fully libre because Firefox has some proprietary parts that the developer can't remove if it want it to work, although he has removed the most of proprietary code.

That's really disappointing to learn that they have apps with proprietary blobs.

It devalues the elevated position that we would typically give to any app on F-Droid. So F-Droid cannot claim that it features only FLOSS.

That's quietly horrifying.

#TheInternet is really dead when you can't freely browse it. Does Tor use these proprietary bits, dear GuardianProject?

@guardianproject @fdroidorg

If there are apps in our repo that contain propriety blobs, please report them to us. Ideally via the issue tracker of the fdroiddata repo at GitLab. Such blobs are against our inclusion policy.
@dsfgs @guardianproject

Thanks for clarifying,

We are left wondering, what is GuardianProject referencing?

What is happening as regards to #Fennec? F-FDroid indeed says "The upstream source code is not entirely free."

We are interested to know what is meant by this, it seems like a departure from the strictly '#freeLlicense' we've seen in the past.

The tracking warning is concerning also. Where can people learn more about what is going on here?


You can always check with our documentation. Find the AntiFeatures explained here: (including UpstreamNonFree and Tracking).

@dsfgs @werwolf you can also see that on the app's page at (as well as in the client). Follow the link from there to the details lets you even list all apps having that AntiFeature.

F-Droid is transparent about such things. Though admittedly details are not always easy to find, this should be quite obvious, would you agree? :awesome:


One thing that we noticed is that the wiki page that is meant to show which apps share the #UpstreamNonFree #antiFeature, appear to lack some apps, namely that org.mozilla.fennec_fdroid one.

If the website is generated automatically, but the wiki isn't, then moving that page off the wiki might be helpful.


@dsfgs The page is generated automatically (or at least was in the past). To my knowledge the wiki is out-of-sync, and should be replaced by "something else". But I neither know by what, nor who's working on it. That's what the issue trackers are for: maybe report it to the "website" issue tracker? I can't be everywhere 😉

@dsfgs Quoting:
Upstream Non-Free

This Anti-Feature is applied to apps where the upstream source code includes proprietary software by default in their own releases.

This does not mean that proprietary software is included in the app. Most likely, the F-Droid build has been patched in some way to remove the Non-Free code/libraries, and/or some functionality may be missing. The app’s description will usually go into more detail about this.

More there 😉

@dsfgs UpstreamNonFree is mainly to tell those who KNOW that and ask "how can that be at F-Droid?" that F-Droid is aware of the fact AND HAS TAKEN PROPER CARE of it – usually by removing those dependencies, or by replacing them with "stubs" (empty functions doing nothing but needed so the app does not crash when it tries to access them, call it "dummy libraries" if you wish).

Okay, understood.

The #Fennec description says that all the proprietary bits have been removed.

So why would someone say the FDroid has proprietary bits. And why did GuardianProject make such a statement about F-Droid in the first place?

This is strange? Has a cat got @guardianproject's tongue?

@dsfgs it might help if you'd link the article you always refer to 😉 I guess it might be some "unlucky phrasing" – but without seeing the article I cannot tell.


Can you see the @guardianproject toot that started this whole thread?

A couple people saying Fennec has proprietary bits (sounds like there is some confusion out there so we are wondering where this confusion is coming from):

@dsfgs Ah, yes. Then maybe @guardianproject can clarify what "missing links" they refer to. They certainly do not mean the apps shipped by F-Droid, but rather something in the underlying structure – though I'm not sure what exactly (the project using GitLab? Not all apps yet building reproducibly? Something else?). I still think "unlucky phrasing" is causing the confusion. Which could easily be straightened by a clarifying toot (hint, hint!) 😉

Yes, we've been made aware of #Gitlab's increasingly #NonFreeNet aspects. Also not friendly to people who don't run #javascript.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Librem Social

Librem Social is an opt-in public network. Messages are shared under Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license terms. Policy.

Stay safe. Please abide by our code of conduct.

(Source code)

image/svg+xml Librem Chat image/svg+xml