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" github.com/schwabe/ics-openvpn without mentioning, as well. Which is GPLv2.

And Librem Chat is just Riot for Android github.com/vector-im/riot-andr 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: 's fork of the server (known as ) has two particular changes that caught my eye.

First, they disabled the public timelines, as well as private posts: source.puri.sm/liberty/smilodo

Second, they disabled reports? source.puri.sm/liberty/smilodo


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...

· · Web · 2 · 0 · 5

@trwnh i can barely understand the technical nitty gritty here, but.. god bless you for going through this absolute trainwreck

stripping out the ability to report abuse. amazing. this is absolutely peak tech dudebro

@trwnh it's weird but the mission statement does mention a full suite of moderation and filtering tools (source.puri.sm/liberty/smilodo)

Maybe there's a plan to reimplement, perhaps differently?

Also the April 1st commit date did catch my eye but it's maybe not relevant.

@crowpersona @trwnh Not according to their policy, which is "no company should control speech".
Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!