Free Software Directory talk:Antifeatures

From Free Software Directory
Revision as of 11:42, 22 December 2016 by Adfeno (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Categories that the FSF don't have a policy on yet

  • Adware – any software package that automatically renders advertisements in order to generate revenue for its author.
  • Tethered - Program depends on communication with a particular server, and is not very useful without that.
    • Stallman says: But maybe such programs should not be in the directory at all. Is there any reason to include them? Could you describe the examples?
    • If the front end is free back the back end isn't, and isn't otherwise useful, then we probably shouldn't include it - Donaldr3
  • Support channels/places that suggest people to use non-free functional data (generally: software, but not always).
    • Example (fictional): A user asking for support on VLC due to some bug or impossibility to do something, and receiving a reply suggesting him to use some non-free software.
    • Exception would be: for testing or development of the free software, or some free/libre software replacement for such non-(free/libre) ones, as described at Is It Ever a Good Thing to Use a Nonfree Program?.

Refine terms

  • Software known to have grave flaws – Software that fails to fully do the job that it says it does.


  • Some categories in is excluded - see for details:
    • "Nonfree Network Services":
      • "The term is not clearly defined. I think we most of the time were actually talking about the code aspect of it: Does an app rely on a networking service that is not (by our knowledge) run or easy to reproduce with free software. Sigh.. don't think that makes it any better. Maybe some examples help: Telegram requires interacting with a server which source code has not been released, so its NonFreeNet. On the other hand, serving html files from an MS IIS http server is not affected, because you can easily replace it with your favored one. -- Krt (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC) " -
    • Tracking - This Antifeature is applied to apps that track you and/or report your activity to somewhere, either without your permission or by default (i.e. you'd have to actively seek out an option to disable it).
    • Non free Dependencies
    • Upstream Non-free
    • Non-Free Assets

Bait and surrender, MySQL examples

Non-free software profit models

--Adfeno (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2016 (EDT)

I think this is an important criteria to consider because when these "premium"/"commercial" editions are better than the "open source"/"community" editions, or when they aren't free/libre, they still allow the proprietors to exercise unjust/unfair power over society.
We must also investigate ProcessMaker, because this page's HTML source evidences the existence of different editions.
There might be other entries to be investigated.
Besides, if you don't mind, I would like to apologize for making the Odoo entry. I created it because someone from Brazil blindly told me that it was free/libre software, and so I had to create the entry to see if that was true, then I saw Odoo being approved, and since the approval, I have recommended it at least two times (always referencing to the approved entry).
--Adfeno (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2016 (EDT)
Just for the record, for those wanting to change the requirements according to what is taken as consideration with this proposal: I spoke with contributors of the directory and some organizers of the meetings (Jgay participated on the debate), and we consider that these crippleware are somehow useful free/libre software (specially because a free software activist can make a parent project out of it), and so we came up with two alternatives that can be used instead of removing the entries. At least one of the following is recommended:
  • Insert a message telling the viewer that the entry is about the free/libre edition of the software, and not about the non-free one, and that the free software movement doesn't recommend the non-free one. I, personally, suggest that this message is displayed with emphasis (like red boxes, with warning symbol and so on), but it's OK to have a simple text message (similar but longer than what the entry about Krita has).
  • Instead of linking to the projects official page, resources, documentation, source code and so on: Link to a page from a free system distribution that provides such software. This avoids attracting people to the non-free functional data.
--Adfeno (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2016 (EDT)

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.