• Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    11 months ago

    If you don’t like the yearly/monthly subscription, you can grab the source code and compile the app yourself. Just patch out this line with a return true. You could also remove the check here and get access to a few settings that way.

    To run your own software on iOS you may need to work around Apple’s fuckery (reinstalling the app every week) but I think there are automated tools that’ll help with that.

    Unfortunately you can’t publish your app to the app store (the app is licensed as AGPL and Apple’s app store procedures make it incompatible with most GPL-like licenses, and only the original copyright author had the legal right to relicense the code to allow Apple’s proprietary additions) but perhaps AltStore will accept your fork.

        • woelkchen@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’ve read CONTRIBUTING.md and unless I’ve missed a line by accident, there is no CLA for contributions, so with the first non-trivial 3rs party contribution the entire code base is AGPL with no way to relicense unless it’s negotiated with said contributor.

            • woelkchen@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              The (A)GPL has no problems with the app store. It merely requires that users must be able to install altered versions and that’s certainly possible. It’s the app store policies by Apple that forbid GPL apps.

              Missing a CLA seems like an oversight, releasing the public code under a license forbidden by Apple’s terms is most likely a deliberate choice to block competing app store submissions. They’d just use LGPLv2.1, Apache License 2, or so.

                • woelkchen@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I don’t think Apple’s terms are problematic.

                  The VLC people had to contact many authors to relicense libVLC to LGPLv2.1 because it would otherwise not be compliant to Apple’s terms. Surely the details are documented somewhere.

              • dukk@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                From the README:

                Feel free to take a look around. We are not yet taking patches as we still have a little bit of tidying up to do. When we do, there will be a contributor license agreement.

                So yeah, looks like there will be a CLA.