They're working to fix it but closed source server and all that.

but I still need Chrome installed for the websites that only work with Chrome

Is the Steam version DRMFREE?

Due to various Flatpak limitations and Flathub randomly breaking regularly, the Flatpak package is not recommended. We recommend that you use the AppImage instead.

Thanks for the PR. I'd be hesitant about adding any permission since flathub displays scary warnings for filesystem access, making it sound like my application is malicious.

Additionally, their silly system requires manual approval of any changes, and the last time it changed, they approved the aarch64 variant but not x86. So I had to push a dummy commit and another release, spamming all users with a notification just because of this pointless process. Much larger app stores such as google play don't require such rubbish.

I'm considering dropping the flatpak for this reason and others, but a middle ground where the CI builds bundles but they're not published on flathub is an option. In which case the added permission is a non issue, and I can just request full filesystem r/o access which solves the portal paths constantly breaking problem too.

Generally speaking, I'm not a huge fan of workarounds for one specific piece of hardware that I don't own and can't debug myself. This sounds like something that should be covered in flatpak itself, not applications.

Alternatively, why can't users just manually add the permission themselves? Or, of course, use the appimage.

due to restrictions placed on them by their banking partners

The Creative Commons licenses (except, arguably, CC0) are a terrible, terrible choice for software. They simple were not designed for software and they make no distinction between the source and binaries. One issue that results from that is the inability to package the software, and at least they acknowledge that that is a consequence.

That also means no inclusion in Linux distributions, and even *with* custom agreements that will be difficult, since this license is just completely incompatible with basically every distribution's terms.

In fact, this choice of license also means no further contributors unless every single one can get the approval of every single other contributor. This is a complete nightmare to walk into as a developer.

This is a completely baffling choice.

This is not, this is a violation of GPL license if the contributor did not explicitly give him permission to relicense their work.

And the main dev stenzek claims he has permission by everyone.

Btw, can CC-BY-ND even be compiled ?

CC doesn't make any distinction between source and binary, so compiling creates a derivative work you're not allowed to redistribute.

EDITED to merge a double-post after somebody deleted their own post:

You, on your own, can compile it. As long as it's just you and nobody knows about it, you can do anything. You can compile it, you can change it to say "stenzek is a doodoo head" at startup, knock yourself out.

Distributing such a changed version, including just a compiled binary of the unchanged sources (because for the CC, both are the same, a derivative work), that's what's not legal. No uploading it to the internet, no giving it to your friends, probably not even letting other people use it on your own system.