A bit curious of @purism to fork @Tusky / K9 Mail and not even mention that anywhere on their website or app listings?
Also I can note the following:
- What is the point of the forks? Do they even at least pre-fill the "social.librem.one" domain for users?
- Is the source even published at all? If not, it's violating GPL. I can't find anything on their Github, at least.
Oof, looks like @purism also forked "OpenVPN for Android" https://github.com/schwabe/ics-openvpn without mentioning, as well. Which is GPLv2.
And Librem Chat is just Riot for Android https://github.com/vector-im/riot-android which is at least Apache 2.0... which still requires prominent notice of derivative work.
Comments? @purism
Like, the least a corporation could do is follow basic legality here, right? Or basic decency in stating that they just forked 4 popular Android apps and are calling that a service?
Actually, even the iOS apps are just forks of iOS apps (Amaroq and Riot at least -- I can't find the VPN app they probably forked). And no Librem Mail, because, well... there are no good email apps on iOS. 😩
OK, so I found @purism source at source.puri.sm (which wasn't advertised anywhere on the Librem One site or app listings, still). Looks like the source is published (and therefore not violating GPL), but this could still be put somewhere more prominent.
OK, now this is seriously interesting: #Purism's fork of the #Mastodon server (known as #Smilodon) has two particular changes that caught my eye.
First, they disabled the public timelines, as well as private posts: https://source.puri.sm/liberty/smilodon/commit/5c02796594b73908cd8197d2f72d17b7c9760d10
Second, they disabled reports? https://source.puri.sm/liberty/smilodon/commit/9cae431902a2c0ce6438c6722a3a901e279c78fc
I can maybe understand the first one. Maybe they just want to focus purely on timelines. And technically, private posts aren't perfectly secure. So you can reduce complexity by just removing those two features overall.
But why would you remove reports entirely, then? Not only does this mean librem.one users can't report any abuse, but also incoming reports about abusers on librem.one will be rejected.
It's one thing to simply not implement federated reports, but it's another to strip it out...
