There is no option for a tiny warning icon, all AFs get the same treatment - this might be a bad design, but there’s no bad intentions behind it.

This isn’t about what they like devs doing. It’s about informing users about how the app works and what it does.

If they didn’t want Organic Maps on F-Droid, they’d just kick them off. There have been plenty of opportunities for them to do it and seem justified, i.e. “we are removing Organic Maps from F-Droid forever because its devs are constantly complaining, causing us extra work and drama in long fruitless discussions”. The opportunity to do that was explicit in the discussions and they didn’t take it.

It’s not deliberate. What is their motivation for doing that?

Kayak example: https://omaps.app/w4CNuytXo0/Hôtel_des_Marronniers a random hotel in Paris. The big K icon labeled “photos, reviews, booking” or something like that.

As for TetheredNet, it’s for a different reason. It’s not that it’s tethered to OSM, it’s that it’s tethered to Organic Maps’s servers serving pre-processed maps. (Organic Maps can’t fetch data from OSM directly)

That gif is very satisfying. It’s far beyond my level of mapping.

Organic Maps thinks that F-Droid has it in for them. (Untrue).

F-Droid labels anti-features, properties of an app which are contrary to the philosophy of FOSS in some way. Organic Maps is labeled for two things:

1. Promoting a proprietary hotels website called Kayak, by inserting links to it when looking at any hotel in the app. This is considered promotion of a non-free network. OM did not like being labeled with this anti-feature.
2. Relying on Organic Maps’s servers for downloading maps, without giving the user the option to change the server URL. This is called Tethered Network Service.

Tethered Network Service is a newly introduced anti-feature. This is besides the point, but before it was added, instances of this were labeled just “Non-Free Network Service”, which was ambiguous and caused a lot of confusion. The important thing is that it’s a new way to label apps.

The F-Droid app has a filter that hides apps based on their anti-features. The filter lists various anti-features to select, and an “Other” category for everything not listed. The new TetheredNet is part of Other.

Here’s the problem: the default filter used to hide apps with “Other” AFs. This default was changed some months ago, but only for new installations. Old installations, even if updated, will stick to whatever was the default when they were installed, therefore they will hide Organic Maps. Organic Maps made a big deal out of this, basically trying to shame F-Droid.

According to the latest F-Droid news, this should be resolved already or soon. I don’t know what the solution is, but I have a couple of guesses.

This is not the first time the play store removes an app for absolutely no reason and then refuses to explain why it did so, and it won’t be the last. Usually they don’t just reinstate the app for no reason.

I don’t think it was a mistake, but even if it was, they do not have proper communications to resolve such mistakes.

QR codes require the background colour (white) to extend at least 5 pixels around the corners. This won’t scan.

Found this after a bit of clicking around: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wiki:Deletion_procedure

My suggestion: edit the page, explain at the top of the page (before the table of contents) how to get an up-to-date list using taginfo.

Other than that, maybe follow the deletion procedure anyway, at least to get an admin’s attention. This page really doesn’t make any sense if it needs to be updated manually (even if it’s with a script) when automatically updated info is available elsewhere.

Note, I have extremely little experience with the wiki, this is just my interpretation of the situation.

If someone shared ROMs 20 years ago and stopped, Nintendo wouldn’t be able to do anything about it today. The statute of limitations does apply.

But if someone started sharing ROMs 20 years ago, and continued doing it every day until today, then that means they shared ROMs yesterday. The “crime” still happened yesterday.

Edit: but they care a lot more about preventing it from happening tomorrow.

I don’t think that’s a good argument. In a more general case, if you didn’t pursue your rights 10 years ago that doesn’t mean you can’t get your shit together and do it today. Maybe you’ve lost some of what you deserved but you still should get future benefits.

As for statue of limitations, if it keeps happening today then it doesn’t matter when it started. They could only talk about things that happened in the past year - it’s still being hosted and shared.

To be clear, I’m not taking Nintendo’s side, all efforts to preserve these games are amazing and I love to see everyone keep it up :)

Trickle down economics works perfectly fine. It’s just that billionaires are subhuman and so are further down than the rest of us.

FWIW I am not one of the jerks who downvoted you, I think your comment contributes to discussion even if I’m the end it turns out to be wrong. I think people just see the downvote button as a “disagree” or “you’re wrong” button, don’t let it get to you.

You need to hire a proofreader :P I can’t read that, I’ve tried

Could have been just a hypothetical or rhetorical question from my POV

In case this is a real question: AFAIK* that is not possible for them to do. The project was open source and it accepted code contributions from everyone using a FOSS license. This means:

1. Everyone who has seen the code explicitly has rights to redistribute it, and this right cannot be revoked
2. The core team does not own the entirety of the code - to transfer ownership to Nintendo they would have to get approval from every single contributor that ever made a pull request that got merged. This is impractical to say the least

So no, there is no and there cannot be legal basis for Nintendo to claim copyright on Yuzu. They might have other claims, but I won’t weigh in on how good they might be because I’m way out of my depth already.

* I’m actually making a bunch of assumptions about Yuzu’s licence and number of contributors that I haven’t bothered to check, so take this with a grain of salt. I’m still pretty confident about point 1 though, I’d be really surprised if this was a wrong assumption, and it alone is enough.

This is all correct but it’s missing freshly-squeezed orange juice over in A tier