linux-app
linux-app copied to clipboard
ProtonVPN
add appstream metadata file
ref:
- https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/chap-Metadata.html
- https://github.com/flathub/flathub/wiki/AppData-Guidelines
- https://github.com/flathub/flathub/pull/3986/files/b318930f4a7555175106814a8fab2c4d75286891#r1141039767
Hey @proletarius101, since I don't find another way to contact you i'll do it here :)
Thanks for your effort in adding the official packages on Flathub 🚀 it's worth to point out though that we will no longer release updates for the current client, thus there is no point in merging existing MRs.
Also, could you tweak the description of the app please in Flathub ? Since we don't officially support installation from Flatpak, would you mind updating the description stating that it's an unofficial version ? Much appreciated for your effort 💪🏻
would you mind updating the description stating that it's an unofficial version
Please note that unless specifically verified (an upcoming feature of flathub.org), packages in flathub.org are usually not directly maintained by the upstream, just like all other packaging methods in Linux distros. Adding a note that it's an unofficial version is unnecessary and unconventional. I've dealt with a few of these cases, and the flathub.org admins have come to this conclusion.
Thanks for your effort in adding the official packages on Flathub rocket it's worth to point out though that we will no longer release updates for the current client, thus there is no point in merging existing MRs.
Yes, I am aware of that, and I am excited about the upcoming version.
Moreover, feel free to find me and the packaging source code at https://github.com/flathub/com.protonvpn.www/
Hi @proletarius101,
Thanks for your work bringing this software to Flathub! It's particularly impressive given the complexity of interacting with Network Manager from within a Flatpak. :+1:
With my Flathub admin hat on - I would respectfully like to revisit your earlier comment:
Adding a note that it's an unofficial version is unnecessary and unconventional. I've dealt with a few of these cases, and the flathub.org admins have come to this conclusion.
I don't believe that we would maintain this position in light of the fact that the application developer themselves have requested such a statement be added.
We have on many occasions been contacted by application developers who are happy to have their application features on Flathub, provided it's clear that added statements to the app description of apps to clarify that the wrapper on Flathub is unofficial, so that people have correct expectations around when to contact the official support team or when to contact the Flathub maintainers.
This is particularly common with extra data apps which are not distributed directly by Flathub, but in this case ProtonVPN is still a brand name belonging to a company, offering services with customer support, etc. To me it's a very reasonable and understandable request.
Of course as the upstream, according to Flathub's policy they are within their rights to request access to the repository and add such a statement themselves, but it hardly seems necessary to make them go to these efforts as they have - as far as I can see - otherwise indicated that they are happy for you to continue distributing this as-is provided such a clarification is made.
Perhaps it might be easier if you would reconsider adding a statement that the Flatpak is unofficial and unsupported by ProtonVPN?
Thanks, Rob
This is particularly common with extra data apps which are not distributed directly by Flathub, but in this case ProtonVPN is still a brand name belonging to a company, offering services with customer support, etc. To me it's a very reasonable and understandable request.
I don't actually have a preference on this matter nor do I make the decision. I just follow what the flathub.org moderators say.
Refs:
- https://github.com/flathub/org.standardnotes.standardnotes/pull/3#issuecomment-844733327
- https://github.com/flathub/flathub/pull/3721#discussion_r1052653247
It's reasonable that for those redistribution issues, users should turn to Flathub. But most likely, it would be an upstream issue. This applies to apps made by companies as well as to other community projects. The remedy should be applied to all projects if it's a valid ground that the upstream feels bad about.
they are within their rights to request access to the repository
As a side note, it's a good idea for the upstream to get the access whether they want to actively support the redistribution, just as a layer of defense.
This is particularly common with extra data apps which are not distributed directly by Flathub, but in this case ProtonVPN is still a brand name belonging to a company, offering services with customer support, etc. To me it's a very reasonable and understandable request.
I don't actually have a preference on this matter nor do I make the decision. I just follow what the flathub.org moderators say.
We're saying: do what the upstream says. :)
Refs:
* [Update org.standardnotes.standardnotes.metainfo.xml flathub/org.standardnotes.standardnotes#3 (comment)](https://github.com/flathub/org.standardnotes.standardnotes/pull/3#issuecomment-844733327)
In this case the upstream requested a note was added to the description and it was. :+1:
* [add io.beekeeperstudio.Studio flathub/flathub#3721 (comment)](https://github.com/flathub/flathub/pull/3721#discussion_r1052653247)
Here as far as I can tell, upstream expressed no preference; the default with FOSS is that we need not put a note, and with proprietary software we should - but that's just the default.
It's reasonable that for those redistribution issues, users should turn to Flathub. But most likely, it would be an upstream issue. This applies to apps made by companies as well as to other community projects. The remedy should be applied to all projects if it's a valid ground that the upstream feels bad about.
Some upstreams (particularly corporate-backed projects) do set policies around the use of their trademark - for instance for quite a while Mozilla refused use of their Firefox brand in the case that the source code was modified but they went backwards and forwards on the policy after a few years of Debian shipping Iceweasel.
It's not Flathub's role to get involved here in a big way, or try to set complicated defaults or policies we must go and apply to every app. We place a note on extra data apps because it avoids the confusion that people believe we are redistributing an unauthorised or false copy of the 3rd party app (which happens quite often when a company has a legal team which searches for download sites of the app) but equally, we also support placing a reasonable note when requested by the authors regardless of license.
they are within their rights to request access to the repository
As a side note, it's a good idea for the upstream to get the access whether they want to actively support the redistribution, just as a layer of defense.
This is up to @calexandru2018 to request as and when they would like it - we're here to meet the request if needed. If they have literally no involvement it might be clearer for them not to obtain access and confuse people as to whether they are or aren't involved.
Since you give a consistent guidance, I'll add a clause to indicate that the flathub distribution is not affiliated with Proton AG