Talk:Conversations.im

NOTE:

The approval process for this software was ambiguous, as my formal opinion as an administrator was ignored by the other administrators (FSF staff members) during the weekly meeting. The developer had the possibility to fix the existing licensing issues in an instant but refused to cooperate, so I do not consider this as a free software. I cannot guarantee that this is actually free software and that it respects the domain owner's policies.

The FSD administrator,
--LorenzoAncora (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2020 (EDT)

Build process

Where can I find information about that? Hi, is the review documented somewhere?

I'm interested in building an Android application that has a valid use case (not a hello world and not RepWiFi that has been deprecated by the latest Replicant 6.0 release) from an FSDG compliant distribution in order to start having Android applications that we can propose to Replicant and Android users in general.

So far my best bet was probably to manage to build emacs with a Replicant 4.2 SDK, but if the "licensing issues" mentionned by LorenzoAncora is fixed somehow, Conversation might be a better bet for me.

Neox told me that the information about the build was in fdroiddata so I looked at it and found some very interesting information there but some things look strange to me.

For instance in the version 0.2.1, the 'mvn clean' and 'mvn package' use maven central, right? If that's the case how can we know to which source code all the code it pulls correspond to? Did the maven artefacts contained full corresponding source code?

Also, which version was reviewed? I can only find a review date (2020-06-05) and not a version.

GNUtoo (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2023 (EDT)

---

Hi GNUtoo,

Hi, is the review documented somewhere? Where can I find information about that?

Time has passed and I've shifted to the administration of the FSWDB, yet I can still write what I recall: at the time, Neox declared to be in contact with the developers of Conversations.im and requested a public review in chat for the v. 2.8 series, where were found and reported some small licensing issues and some references to non-free web resources, origin of the Notice on this page.

I'm interested in building an Android application that has a valid use case[...]

I suggest a paid application with a 3,9⭐ rating and a still immature codebase may not be a good starting base for experimentation.

Regardless, the policies of the FSD and the recommendations of the administrators should not be considered development advices as are aimed mainly at protecting the visitors.

[...] if the "licensing issues" mentionned by LorenzoAncora is fixed somehow [...]

All FSD entry revisions should be tied to a specific verified release while this is still untied (and obviously might be non-free), so I'd consider the notice as valid until a new formal review process is completed to attest the absence of incompatibilities with the current policies of the FSD in a specific version. Thank you for your inquiry. Take care, --LorenzoAncora (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2023 (EDT)

---

Regardless, the policies of the FSD and the recommendations of the administrators should not be considered development advices as are aimed mainly at protecting the visitors.

Indeed. Here I'm interested in knowing if there is 1 application for Android that is useful and that is 100% free software without any nonfree dependencies. The FSD goal is also to review application source code to determine if they are free software. So here I think that it's a good idea if I collaborate with the FSD at least on the review part if the applications I'm trying to review if it only runs on Android. On my side I'll try to gather more information on this review to understand if it still fits in the FSD or if it depends on nonfree dependencies (like the Android SDK), and the amount of dependencies it has (which ideally would also need to be reviewed to be sure that this application is (still) fully free software). GNUtoo (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2023 (EDT)

---

[…]The FSD goal is also to review application source code[…]On my side I'll try to gather more information on this[…]

That's the spirit! 😎
However, certain modern software might require thorough inspection, in particular checking for the presence of non-free resources downloaded at runtime, references to websites which endorse non-free software and so on… Sharing ths kind of burden could lead to more reliable results, so I recommend you to ask to the fellow administrators of the free software evaluation team to start a new review process. Good luck, I remain at your disposal for any need, as always. 👋 --LorenzoAncora (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2023 (EDT)