In order to get rid of these infrequently misleading ads from SourceForge pages, we’re asking you to drop us an email at offering the screenshot and, more importantly, the whole link to the confusing ads . We will make sure to review all such requests, and if we accept as true with you, take quick action. Please help us to make SourceForge a far better place. Your input is cloth to help mitigate this issue.
You are in danger of losing the help of the open source group. Perhaps you that as high-quality rather than bad since they do not provide direct earnings, but I indicate that is short sighted. There are two diverse types of builders – people who need to monetize via ads misleading or not and those who do not. You should instantly stop using your installer for those that wish their install method to be clear and free. To do in a different way makes you appear greedy, since developers don’t seem to be dumb – they know you are monetizing their work for yourself. As an open source developer, I resent using your installer and the misleading advertising.
Because I do no believe that you are still willing to host open source program with out monetizing it, I will no longer be using SF to host my projects. Dice should follow its core business instead of choosing a fight with the open source group. Recently the only safe way for regular users to download a specific thing from Sourceforge was with an ad blocker, otherwise they got tricked into fitting malware and crapware by those big green ‘Download Now’ ads that appear on every download page. All this post says is that the deceptive big green buttons at the moment are going to start appearing in the installers in addition. Notice how in the Filezilla installer on the page where it presents the malware/crapware it has a greyed out ‘Decline’ button and a big green ‘Accept’ button.
This is basically designed to trick users who are used to clicking ‘Accept’ via SW license agreements during installs, and associate the ‘Decline’ option with cancelling the setting up. A fairer wording would be ‘Install Filezilla with out installing promotional software’ or ‘Install Filezilla with promotional software’, with both buttons in green!The idea that a close source installer can be fully transparent sounds like advertising double talk. The installing flow has no deceptive steps…”Who says it has no deceptive steps?How do I audit the source code to the installation flow?For anyone that reads the SourceForge blog, this seems to be a very jarring change in prospective on the part of SourceForge. Several old SourceForge blog posts elevate transparency, but always in the context Open Source Software. Before November 2013, I can’t find any SourceForge blog posts that confer with close source as “fully clear.
” I can also’t find the other SourceForge blog post that tries to assert close source program comprise no misleading steps. Once SourceForge is in a position to make the leap that a detailed source installer is fully clear, there really is no common ground to proceed a dialogue on. It isn’t an issue of 1/3 party being a bad actor, SourceForge itself is the bad actor. Bottom line, this SourceForge blog post which backs the use of an in depth source installer is proof of abrasion happening on basic ideal of the basis of SourceForge. Offering things without spending a dime to the general public and setting up a cash flow by promoting ads is the one business model that keeps the Internet alive. The free offer like a lot of these beautiful cloud services or search engines or social networks are the baits.
The fish is data to accurately place ads. So even Microsoft found this a few month ago and now eagerly tries to use Windows 8. 1 as a platform for this. Nevertheless this company model is totally unethical, as a result of it forces people to pay for a specific thing they never ordered just by taking some beer or chocolate from the grocery store. So if South Forge is a useful provider and distributes great program, both developers and downloaders should pay for it. But dont try to become an orgainsation like mozilla that says to be open und at no cost and in reality earn tens of hundreds of thousands of dollars simply by favoring Google as a Starter Page and using Google “technology” for scanning sites to profile the user.
chilinuxThanks in your feedback. We disagree that we strongly encourage top tasks to sign up for the DevShareprogram. The Gimp Win Administrator wrote this to us – “while youSourceforge were presenting the bundle, when I said I’m not interested,that was it. ” Feel free to ask him for affirmation. We knowledgeable ourprojects in regards to the program and some of them asked to confer with know more. About misleading steps.
The DevShare program is compliant with Google’s strictest guidelines about secondary offerings, moreover we obtained advantageous comments from group members as the OSI Director Simon Phipps. Along the road of the impending blueprint we’ll suppose if creating anopen source installer would make a big difference to our neighborhood. In regards to Google, several of the RSS feeds I video display have had recent reviews about Google beingfined among $17 million and $22. 5 million in the Safari privacy case. Also, there has been an on going stream of articles about individuals of thesecurity group claiming issues with malware allotted via theGoogle Play application store. So, if Google has such great guidelines inplace to prevent deceptive recreation, why are they having quite a bit troubleactually preventing it?And if it is Google we must always put our trust in,why don’t we just move our initiatives to Google Code and the binarydownloads to Google Docs?Whatbothers me the most, is no one has defined the “cost” which could be involved in the DevShareprogram being in line with truly fully clear open source installer.
For example, if secondary choices where provided by a NullSoft Installer and publically available NSIS script, then would installs of thesecondary offering be worth less?Is clicking to set up a secondaryoffering from a closed source installer actually worth more thanclicking to install a secondary providing from an open source installer?What is the percentage distinction in worth between an set up carried out by an open installer vs. a closed installer?Please explain to me if DevShare is already “designed to be fully clear” then why does itrequire the installer to be closed source?Thanks again on your reply. About two thirds of my friends and/or family members attempting to down load Free/Open Source Software FOSS from Sourceforge that I put forward end up “inadvertently” downloading some proprietary crap to their Windows machines. In reviewing their stories, I fully recognize how complex it has become for blameless individuals – and even for me if not paying astute awareness to a ‘simple’ download, to parent the alterations among the favored application down load versus some bloatware, in spite of the down load procedure itself. Sourceforge should have a, “enforced” approach by which any ‘proprietary’ download or other type category application is ‘explicitly” clarified – truly and obviously displayed – as not being a part of or necessary to the FOSS application download, before the down load approach begins. Anything else is deceit.
last week i downloaded a program from sourceforge with a type of “transparent” installers…. before everything i was slightly stunned, having to cautiously very carefully re read, and then re read again, so i didn’t end up with some crap/rubbish on my laptop: i found the wording, and layout TO BE VERY DECEPTIVE AS TO TRICK ME INTO ALLOWING UNWANTED MATERIAL!i made it past the B. S. but it would have BEEN VERY EASY TO HAVE MADE A MISTAKE WITHOUT TREATING IT LIKE A LAWYER DOES WITH A LEGAL DOCUMENT!my shock has slowly turned to sadness: as i am knowing the whole implications: MY TRUSTED SOURCEFORGE IS SELLING IT’S SOUL WITHOUT TRUST THE FOUNDATION WILL CRUMBLE ALL THAT WAS GOOD ALL THAT WAS CAMELOT WILL BE JUST A FADING MEMORY!PLEASE THINK THRU THIS CAREFULLY……SOURCEFORGE IS AT THE CROSSROADS!thank you,RAINMAN among the many loyal matters one who still desires to believe that Camelot still shines brightly!chilinuxThanks again for your similarly remark. We agree that endorsements are alternative than transparency, even though, Simon Phipps defined how what we do suits his own seven metrics foridentifying best apply in download products and services.
We scored pretty welland one metric is mainly – transparency. As per Simon, “Allinstaller behavior is transparent; no surprises or side results,including global system changes. ” So in this case, the truth that we are clear was a part of the wider endorsement. Google guidelines about how secondary offers are proposed to end users are thestrictest available on the market. Talking about Google Code we’re actuallyobserving the opposite sample: some projects hosted on google code arenow moving their downloads to SourceForge, since Google will sooneliminate that provider.
Last but not least, we’ll feel if making our installer open sourcewould make a big difference to our viewers, stay tuned for reviewing ourblueprint.