User:Panos Alevropoulos/test/Antifeatures

From Free Software Directory
Jump to: navigation, search

This page documents my proposed antifeatures for the FSD. In my opinion, antifeatures should only be related to software freedom.


My suggested Antifeatures

These are antifeatures that are related to software freedom, but do not fall into FSD's inclusion requirements:

  • Nonfree version exists (currently called Bait and surrender, but I'm not sure what that means - my suggestion needs a better name) - warn users that the developers use the free version to promote a proprietary version (e.g. GitLab).
  • Nonfree assets (such as images, videos, etc.) - FSD requires assets to be free as long as they are essential. this is an antifeature only if trivial nonfree assets are included.
  • Nonfree JavaScript - important project page(s) require(s) nonfree JavaScript to function (e.g. forum requires Google Captcha or some other nonfree code).
  • Nonfree software required for development discussion - project uses proprietary app for communication (e.g. Telegram, Discord, etc.).
  • Nonfree addons - promotes other nonfree apps or plugins to be combined with the program (the program itself is free).
  • Unethical repository - project uses unacceptable repository (e.g. GitHub) - if this antifeature is used, it will be abundant, because most projects use GitHub. This might be good, because it can urge developers to use better repos.
  • DRM - the GPL permits DRM, so this is definitely an antifeature. should include a link to

Antifeatures that should probably not be added

Some of these may be useful to mention, but I don't think they are antifeatures:

  • Nonfree network services -> network services aren't free or nonfree.
  • Minified code -> minified code isn't considered source code, therefore the program isn't free in the first place.
  • Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS) -> as long as the program allows self-hosting, the program is free (e.g. Vaultwarden, Etherpad).
  • Upstream nonfree -> this means that the upstream code includes proprietary code, but the documented program has removed nonfree blobs. there is no need to inform users about the proprietary version.
  • Nonfree dependencies -> the program wouldn't work on a FSDG approved distro, so the program is nonfree.
  • Nonfree documentation -> free documentation is an FSD requirement. no need to mention nonfree documentation if free documentation exists.
  • Ads -> this is not a freedom issue.
  • Tracking -> this is not a freedom issue.
  • Utility flaws -> this is not a freedom issue.
  • Security vulnerability -> this is not a freedom issue.
  • Free fork needed -> means that the program switched to a proprietary license. though users should be warned about the latest free version, it's up to the community whether.
  • Uses a name to avoid -> this is neither an antifeature nor a freedom issue.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the page “GNU Free Documentation License”.

The copyright and license notices on this page only apply to the text on this page. Any software or copyright-licenses or other similar notices described in this text has its own copyright notice and license, which can usually be found in the distribution or license text itself.