Publishing applications using the OsmAnd UI/UX code to Google Play, Amazon Market, or Apple Store must be done with written permission.
That’s why I linked the folder Osmand/tree/master/OsmAnd/res. It contains icons and XML files, which are used to describe the UI.
CC-BY-NC-ND is a non-free license. It forbids commercial redistribution and it doesn’t allow any modification of the files. OsmAnd further restricts what you can do, as it does not allow redistribution in the most popular app stores without permission.
If it wouldn’t be foss, it couldn’t be built by the f-droid build system, it can only build foss projects
The source files are publicly available, so F-Droid can use them to build the app, but the license restricts what you can do with these files.
F-Droid does not sell the app (non-commercial clause), is not modifying it (non-derivative clause) and is not listed as one of the restricted app stores, so it can distribute the app. But this does not make the app free and open-source software.
Aha, I see, you can consider it whatever you want, maybe the “not fully free software” would be a better term, but “not open source” is too harsh, because source is open, as you can see it, but doesn’t fit the definition of Free Software as defined by FSF. If you use requirements by FSF, please use their terminology as well, it’s confusing.
The license contains the following clause:
That’s why I linked the folder
Osmand/tree/master/OsmAnd/res. It contains icons and XML files, which are used to describe the UI.CC-BY-NC-ND is a non-free license. It forbids commercial redistribution and it doesn’t allow any modification of the files. OsmAnd further restricts what you can do, as it does not allow redistribution in the most popular app stores without permission.
The source files are publicly available, so F-Droid can use them to build the app, but the license restricts what you can do with these files.
F-Droid does not sell the app (non-commercial clause), is not modifying it (non-derivative clause) and is not listed as one of the restricted app stores, so it can distribute the app. But this does not make the app free and open-source software.
Aha, I see, you can consider it whatever you want, maybe the “not fully free software” would be a better term, but “not open source” is too harsh, because source is open, as you can see it, but doesn’t fit the definition of Free Software as defined by FSF. If you use requirements by FSF, please use their terminology as well, it’s confusing.
Also please contact FSF, because they recommend this non-free app on their website: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Collection:Replicant-expanded#Navigation
deleted by creator