Request for protocol of inclusion

[momobobe]

New here, and I feel a little confusing about the significance of this project, so could anyone help me understand why we have this project besides F-Droid+Izzy's repo or https://android.izzysoft.de/applists.php (not all FOSS there, but tagged)?

It seems it has been a history of quite a few years, but included apps are still very limited, then does this project exclusively accept apps without any anti-features?

Also, why not simply make a finer category for F-Droid and drop those apps with anti-features? In that way, there would be many more apps getting listed.

As far as I can understand, this project is selecting apps very carefully (maybe only best ones or first choices under each catalog), is that correct? Then we have to make a protocol of inclusion so that new contributors may know what they can do. For example, I want to add some apps like UpgradeAll, Kinoko, Ungoogled Chromium Android, Iceraven and so on, but just got no idea which ones meet the standard of this project, then it must be frustrating when someone wanna contribute but got rejected for various reasons without preknowledge. So please clarify such a protocol and everyone would feel happy to see it.

PS: Maybe we can have several levels of standard instead of simply rejecting some really extraordinary apps with minor (but maybe unchangeable) defects. For example, how about those apps making connection to non-free network services, like Aurora Store and Yalp Store? Hardcore FOSS fanatics won't like the idea that such apps are FOSS.

Again, what I want is a clear check list to know how this project recognize FOSS apps, and probably with multiple levels, otherwise the project seems little significant, especially since most apps listed here are also on F-Droid.

[offa]

New here, and I feel a little confusing about the significance of this project, so could anyone help me understand why we have this project besides F-Droid+Izzy's repo or https://android.izzysoft.de/applists.php (not all FOSS there, but tagged)?

Simply because I needed a simple way to share and remember FOSS apps … and at some point it started to grow 😄.

It's intended as a simple list you can use and share without any installation or dependencies, and a handy starting point. A different purpose, not a competitor (quite the contrary).

It seems it has been a history of quite a few years, but included apps are still very limited, then does this project exclusively accept apps without any anti-features?

Anti-features are a difficult topic, but not a general no-go. I try to stick with F-Droids policy; simple answer: If it fits on F-Droid, it fits here too.

Also, why not simply make a finer category for F-Droid and drop those apps with anti-features? In that way, there would be many more apps getting listed.

There are apps that aren't on F-Droid for various reasons, eg. because packaging is in progress, it hasn't been requested yet or the developers don't wont to (just to name a few).

As far as I can understand, this project is selecting apps very carefully (maybe only best ones or first choices under each catalog), is that correct?

At least I try my best here 👍

Both are subjective, thus difficult criteria. Furthermore they would exclude new or less known projects completely.

Then we have to make a protocol of inclusion so that new contributors may know what they can do. For example, I want to add some apps like UpgradeAll, Kinoko, Ungoogled Chromium Android, Iceraven and so on, but just got no idea which ones meet the standard of this project, then it must be frustrating when someone wanna contribute but got rejected for various reasons without preknowledge. So please clarify such a protocol and everyone would feel happy to see it.

The criteria are listed in CONTRIBUTING.md. As mentioned earlier the F-Droid inclusion policy or packaging requests are a good assistance too. Indeed, it's not that easy in some cases and some are really hard to figure out. If you aren't sure about an app, fell free to open an issue for discussion first.

PS: Maybe we can have several levels of standard instead of simply rejecting some really extraordinary apps with minor (but maybe unchangeable) defects. For example, how about those apps making connection to non-free network services, like Aurora Store and Yalp Store? Hardcore FOSS fanatics won't like the idea that such apps are FOSS.

Non-free network services are fine (in most cases) as long as the actual app is FOSS. I wouldn't consider them part of the app. As you've mentioned, others may disagree here. Both – Aurora and Yalp store – are listed and on F-Droid therefore.

[momobobe]

Thanks for your answer first.

The criteria are listed in CONTRIBUTING.md. As mentioned earlier the F-Droid inclusion policy or packaging requests are a good assistance too. Indeed, it's not that easy in some cases and some are really hard to figure out. If you aren't sure about an app, fell free to open an issue for discussion first.

I may view this document as an attempt, but it looks still too general and rough, for example, item 1, 2, 8 are all about the literal and core idea of FOSS, although emphasizing slightly different aspects. And item 3, 4 about anti-features like advertisement, spyware and proprietary elements, as you mentioned, are the difficult topic, which needs further clarification.

If you feel it hard to compose the more detailed protocol, maybe it's not a bad idea to list typical negative cases where the app is (claimed) FOSS, but got rejected/removed for some reasons, like Kiwi Browser, you rejected for the reason

However, due to the linked business model it's … debatable …

If there's no strong opinion for adding it, I'd suggest leaving it out for now.

which sounds like due to their redirection to certain search engine (aka non-free network services). Then some comments and clarification are supposed to attached to such a case in to order to keep the inclusion standard consistent.

[offa]

And item 3, 4 about anti-features like advertisement, spyware and proprietary elements, as you mentioned, are the difficult topic, which needs further clarification.

I have linked to the F-Droid guidelines since which summarize anti features quite good.

If you feel it hard to compose the more detailed protocol, maybe it's not a bad idea to list typical negative cases where the app is (claimed) FOSS, but got rejected/removed for some reasons, like Kiwi Browser, you rejected for the reason
[…]
which sounds like due to their redirection to certain search engine (aka non-free network services). Then some comments and clarification are supposed to attached to such a case in to order to keep the inclusion standard consistent.

Not quite, while the business model is debatable, Hijacking websites is not. It's a no-go.

[shuvashish76]

@momobobe Thanks for raising this issue.

As far as I can understand, this project is selecting apps very carefully (maybe only best ones or first choices under each catalog), is that correct?

I add apps which I personally find useful/unique/interesting/no better alternative in their category etc... But I do agree that we don't have a standard for this list.
recent e.g. - I don't find Sobriety & STT apps (#268) unique at all. While I appreciate the devs for making their apps opensource at the same time there are 100s of tracker apps on F-Droid & the list growing slowly. (same for note taking apps).

How would you oppose the inclusion of these type apps if someone intend to add them to the list? No criteria for removal of such apps. I've the same complain for F-Droid. F-Droid is know for quality apps but it will lose it's reputation by including such apps. F-Droid should change its inclusion policy unless it will be filled with useless apps just like PlayStore.

No offense to any devs, this topic is for discussion purpose only.

[offa]

I don't see reasons against multiple apps for the same purpose. Every user has it's own requirements or preferences – one might base it's choice on features, one by design or because it's the only one running on the device. Given there are plenty of tracker apps; if every one here picks a few he likes, I'd guess we get different choices. How would a criteria for 'unique' or 'interesting' look like?

The linked tracker list mixes different use cases and it makes sense to me to have different tracker for eg. time or money.

Unfortunately writing a standard without bias is tough. While I don't know any of the second lists projects – and honestly, I wouldn't use any of these personally – what's the factual argument against them? Remove them because they aren't serious?

Writing an inclusion criteria is a balancing act.

(Not strictly related to this topic) If you consider a project not suitable for listing or there are reasons to remove it (things might have changed since it's contribution), please feel free to comment or file an issue for discussion.

[shuvashish76]

I don't see reasons against multiple apps for the same purpose.

I'm not against multiple apps either. In fact the whole purpose of this project is to give users freedom of choice.

Unfortunately writing a standard without bias is tough.

Totally agree.

what's the factual argument against them? Remove them because they aren't serious?

Removal isn't the problem inclusion of each & ALL foss apps is the issue. I think most people come here either to look for foss alternative to their existing proprietary app or to try out serious better quality based on their usability foss apps. However "Quality" itself is a subjective topic & varies person to person.
But I get you point, thanks for your opinion on it.