admin
b38aa92317
gates / gates (push) Successful in 7s
NOTHING IN THE CATALOG CHANGED. No template, no .felhom.yml, no templates.json, no image pin. Output is audits/pikapods-scan-2026-10-10/. THE GREEN HEART, in PikaPods' own words. Hovering it shows the tooltip "Project has a revenue sharing agreement." (verified by hovering the heart beside Actual, A1-heart-tooltip.jpg). Their FAQ: "Open source developers have the option to enter into a revenue sharing agreement to receive 20% of revenues their app generates." The mark is NOT permission for Felhom -- it is an agreement with PikaPods, on terms we have not seen. It only shows the author is open to such an arrangement at all. Finding the mark took reading the DOM: the hearts are not text and not a title attribute. Each card carries three Vuetify icons, all three present on every card, and the green one (rgb(76,175,80)) is display:none where there is no agreement. Counting "hearts in the page text" would have returned zero on all 126. NUMBERS. 126 apps on PikaPods, 39 marked. 58 template dirs here (56 offered + plant-it abandoned + wger hidden -- which reconciles with the website's 56 + FileBrowser built-in). 25 on both, 33 of ours not there, 101 of theirs not ours, 11 of the 25 shared carry the mark. LICENCE COMFORT: one row moved, and I will not dress it up as more. sparkyfitness is there WITH the mark, consistent with what its author already told us (R-784) -- so he demonstrably does commercial-hosting agreements. tandoor, emby, plex, outline, calcom and wanderer are NOT on PikaPods at all, so the scan says nothing about them. n8n and docmost ARE hosted there WITHOUT a mark: a fact about PikaPods' risk appetite, not a permission we can borrow. TEN CANDIDATES, none added, each licence read at its own repo and cited: Grocy (MIT), Firefly III (AGPL-3.0), Monica (AGPL-3.0), LubeLogger (MIT), Storyteller (MIT), PdfDing (AGPL-3.0), Memos (MIT), Wealthfolio (AGPL-3.0), Kavita (GPL-3.0), PhotoPrism (AGPL-3.0). Developer and company tools were excluded wholesale. Each would still go through NEW-APP-CHECKLIST.md. JOPLIN WAS SHORTLISTED AND DROPPED ON ITS LICENCE, which is the most useful thing in this scan. Its repo root says AGPL-3.0-or-later "unless a directory contains a LICENSE or LICENSE.md file" -- and packages/server, the part we would host, carries the Joplin Server Personal Use License: "the Software may be used for personal non-commercial purposes only", and the licensee may not "grant others the right to use the Software for a fee". Same shape as SparkyFitness: open client, restricted server. GitHub's repo-level licence field says AGPL-3.0 and would have hidden it. Two other reads worth keeping: PdfDing's GitHub mirror has NO licence file at all (the project lives on Codeberg, where it is AGPL-3.0) -- trusting the mirror would have called it unlicensed; and photoprism/joplin both report NOASSERTION to the API, so both needed the file read rather than the badge. Register: 0 opened, 0 closed. The brief expected a row only for a licence problem in an app we already ship; none turned up. No contact with PikaPods or any author.