Aves Libre is not actually Open Source

The issue upstream was quickly closed, so it doesn't look like we can ask upstream much.

I thought it was clear that the issue is with "You must use the app for legal, authorized and acceptable purposes".

"Legal" depends on jurisdiction, and it's a restriction that is for your country to impose, not for the app writer. "Authorized and acceptable"... why would I interpret them in the same way as "legal"? First, if they meant the same, they would be redundant, and they wouldn't be stated; second, "authorized" is much more specific than "legal", but also much more generic when nothing is actually specified. It could mean authorized by the author, but since that's not specified, it basically means we aren't safely authorized to do anything with the app. "Acceptable" is even worse.

The author freely states that they are not a lawyer. They really shouldn't introduce terms like these, then, because a lawyer would definitely take issue with them... and so should we, absolutely, and trivializing this as "come on, it just means stay legal, and it goes away when you leave the dialog" is really not the right route in my opinion.

F-Droid can guide developers who are making their software proprietary without quite realizing or without realizing the implications, and I believe this has happened many times, and has been productive. But this is not the case: the developer clearly stated they're not interested in changing the state of things.

Here's the first freedom the FSF states:

The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.

So, given that, can a developer impose further restriction with the software remaining free, even if those restrictions are about legality? Let's continue reading, this time the section about export regulations:

Sometimes government export control regulations and trade sanctions can constrain your freedom to distribute copies of programs internationally. Software developers do not have the power to eliminate or override these restrictions, but what they can and must do is refuse to impose them as conditions of use of the program.

This is crystal clear to me. Again, the state decides on legality, while a free software developer should not, and, emphasis, must not impose further conditions, even just "legal use", on the use of the program.

This doesn't mean you can use programs illegally; it just means for something to be free software, it must not act like it has jurisdiction on you beyond an OSI-compliant copyright (or rather, copyleft) license.

Even the OSI definition, which is intended to be more brief and centered on whether a license fits or not, states about "fields on endeavor" that

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Is genetic research "acceptable"? Is it "authorized"? It may be unacceptable in the author's eyes, depending on what it's doing, and it may be unauthorized by some overseeing entity. But that's not the program's business at all, and the OSI states that making it the program's business fails to meet their definition of an open-source license.

Here is an example of something that is now illegal in a well-known jurisdiction (well-known for its legal history, anyway):

The UK will treat online images of immigrants crossing the Channel as a criminal offence

On 17 January, the United Kingdom (UK) government announced that online platforms will have to proactively remove images of immigrants crossing the Channel in small boats under a new amendment to be tabled to the Online Safety Bill. The announcement, intended to bolster the UK’s hostile immigration policy, has been met with concern among the British public and charities working with people on the move.

Am I allowed, by the author's understanding of "legal" and "illegal" and hence by the ToS, to store such images in Aves Libre, considering the app can be used to share them on social media? As I "must use the app for legal, authorized and acceptable purposes".

Does it depend on whether the author or myself are in the UK? How do I determine the former? How do I determine anything about these vague ToS? They are bad. They are nonfree. That's why no OSI-approved LICENSE file will include that sort of bad stuff.

Even if we decide for me it's not illegal, is it authorized? Is it acceptable? The UK lawmakers clearly seem to think it's not. What does the author think? Am I supposed to ask the author every time such an issue pops up, before I hit the "Share" button in their app?