Criticism of the licensing policy and browser development

Applications
1

Hello Sailfish OS team and community,

I want to raise a concern regarding licensing and browser development.

I genuinely appreciate Sailfish OS.
The system design, gesture control, privacy focus and overall UX are excellent.

However, there is a growing frustration around two key areas:

  1. Browser modernization

  2. License availability beyond officially supported Sony devices

I am willing to pay the 24.95 € license.
I do not need Android App Support.
I mainly need a modern, fully functional browser with up-to-date web compatibility.

Currently, Fairphone 4 users can flash Sailfish OS, but there is no clear path to officially obtain a license that ensures long-term browser and core component development.

This creates an unfortunate gap:

The system can be installed —
but critical components remain limited.

From a sustainability perspective, especially on a device like Fairphone, broader license availability would strengthen Sailfish OS’s credibility.

My question is simple:

Is there a roadmap for making the license available for more officially supported community ports, including Fairphone 4?

I genuinely want Sailfish OS to succeed — but browser modernization and licensing clarity are essential for long-term viability. Sailfish OS auf dem Fairphone 4

List of Android → Sailfish OS applications

6 Likes
2

Fix your title.  

1 Like
3

What’s your objection? Is it that I’m expressing my criticism? It would be nice if you could explain yourself more clearly and explicitly. Thank you.

4

Not everybody understand German.

1 Like
5

Thank you for your help. Not everyone speaks English. I don’t, and I have to translate everything. Actually, I hate English… :wink: Thank you again for your help. I hope I did everything correctly.

1 Like
6

I agree with your question. I have a Fairphone 5, love SailfishOS, but still need some Android apps to really use the phone as a daily driver. And the solution is easy, make AAS licences available for other ports.

5 Likes
7

Your problem. Don’t make it ours. I will never demand you speak Swedish.

5 Likes
8

Finally a discussion about SFOS in Fairphone… Please. We have that, we had that and I cannot see why we have to discuss this again and again and in many parallel threads. And then there is the browser issue… discussed for years and quite sure not solved in yet another thread.

11

Huh? I do not understand what you try to say here?

1 Like
12

I understand your point, and I agree that broader AAS license availability would help a lot of Fairphone users.

However, I think the issue is slightly more complex than just “make the license available”.

Sailfish OS is built on a hybrid model.
Part of it is open source, part of it is commercial.
AAS (Android App Support) depends on proprietary components and licensing agreements. That likely means Jolla must certify and support each device officially before offering licenses.

The real question for me is not only AAS.

It is about long-term browser modernization and core web compatibility on community ports like Fairphone 4 and 5.

I am personally willing to pay the 24.95 € license.
But if the license is only available for selected Sony devices, it creates a gap between what is technically possible (flashing the OS) and what is officially supported.

That gap feels problematic — especially on a device like Fairphone, which stands for sustainability.

If Sailfish OS wants to position itself as a long-term independent alternative, clearer communication about licensing strategy for non-Sony ports would help a lot.

13

“It is high time that Jolla’s management finally takes this seriously and acts decisively — otherwise Sailfish will suffer the same fate as Nokia. Anyone who fails to innovate and simply stands still today will feel the painful consequences: Sweden already experienced this with Nokia, and Germany is currently experiencing it with its automotive industry. In a world that is changing at breakneck speed, standing still is the surest path to becoming a loser.

Europe risks turning into nothing more than a beautiful museum continent under persistent protectionism — the kind promoted by Ursula von der Leyen and similar figures: impressive to look at, full of history, but ultimately irrelevant on the global stage. This warning needs to be repeated again and again — before it’s too late.”

14

Can you concretely summarise what you actually want to say? You write about how Android App Support is not available on community ports, but then write you don’t really need it so it’s not important, and the crux appears to be the fact that the browser is severely outdated. This is hardly the first time Jolla’s heard about it. If it were easy to fix, they would have fixed it, because they also know a functioning browser is pretty important nowadays. But the browser also has nothing to do with whether you buy a license or not. The license is purely to get Android App Support (and Exchange support, and being able to update without opening a terminal).

That being said, if you want an up-to-date browser, you can install Angelfish:

Also, please don’t use AI translations. They make your posts very hard to read. Just use Google Translate or something - the translations suck but at least they don’t try to make every single sentence into a meaningless oneliner.

3 Likes
15

About browser, I think it is just battle against time constantly. Super resource hungry process of keeping the browser up to date and I think here might be need to think something in the future. About OS support for Fairphone, how I have understood it is that there would need to be somekind of agreement between Jolla and Fairphone. To my understanding, the community port is build on top of Lineage and anyone correct me if I am wrong, but that kind of open source project utilisation don’t allow to Jolla charge license fee? This is at least according my understanding the reason why they have historically supported officially only Sony devices as they allow this commercial model

2 Likes
16

Guten morgen carrabelloy!

Yes indeed these subjects come up a lot but there’s no clear answer I can give you. Jolla has talked about allowing community projects to use AAS, but so far they’ve not allowed it. There must be good reasons for it and I am sure if they could, they would. Jolla is a business and the AAS side of things is a mighty string to their bow, so I understand why they’d like to keep it for official ports. They’ve got to keep the lights on somehow! Also i guess fewer phones emulating Android keeps them under Googles radar to an extent.

As for the browser, yeah it needs work. I agree with what CLMA31 has said, modern internet is much more heavy than it used to be and while I hate to say it, the browser doesn’t seem to be a major priority for Jolla. Some community members have put in great strides to make it better, but it still needs work.
More sailors should in theory mean Jolla can put more emphasis on things like the browser, which would be nice.
I hope all I’ve said makes sense, and I am not talking total botty-water.

4 Likes
17

Whatever happened to Nokia in Sweden and however support for your Fairphone will save the German automotive industry I cannot say. I had a look at your blog. You seem to be quite good in explaining politics and economy in large scale. There will come the time people will recognize your superiour knowledge. Until then this forum might be only the second best place to explain the world.

1 Like
18

Let me clarify my position a bit more precisely.

I understand that the license itself is technically tied to Android App Support, Exchange and OTA convenience — not directly to the browser engine.

However, from a real-world user perspective on a community port like Fairphone 4, the separation feels theoretical rather than practical.

What users experience is this:

• The browser struggles with modern web standards.
• Essential services like password managers or complex web apps do not function reliably.
• There is no official roadmap explaining how community ports will receive long-term browser modernization.

Yes, Angelfish can be installed.
Yes, technically there are workarounds.

But installing community repositories and manually managing Qt6 apps is not what most users would consider an official, supported solution. It is a workaround — not a strategy.

My concern is not Android App Support itself.
I explicitly said I do not need it.

My concern is structural:

If Sailfish OS allows devices like Fairphone 4 to be flashed and used, but offers no clear path to officially support or license them long-term, then there is a gap between possibility and commitment.

That gap creates uncertainty.

And uncertainty is dangerous for any alternative platform.

Regarding language: not everyone in this forum is a native English speaker. Content should matter more than stylistic perfection. Accessibility is part of openness.

I am not attacking Sailfish OS.
I genuinely appreciate the system and want it to succeed.

But if browser modernization remains a recurring issue without a transparent development path, frustration will continue — especially among users who are actually willing to pay and support the project.

Constructive criticism is not hostility.
It is engagement.

2 Likes
19

Afaik -and is often discussed- there is no official support SFOS on Fair Phones. No commitment. No nothing. You are free to use community ports but they are community ports as in community not like in officially supported.

4 Likes
20

I understand your point.

You are right that Fairphone ports are community ports and not officially supported devices. There is no formal commitment from Jolla in that sense.

My point is slightly different.

I am not claiming that Jolla owes Fairphone users official support.

What I am questioning is the structural gap between:

• A system that is technically mature enough to run well on Fairphone 4
• A licensing model that remains strictly limited to selected Sony devices

When a community port reaches a level where telephony, SMS, data and daily use are stable, it naturally raises the question whether there could be an optional path toward official licensing — even without full device certification.

Not a guarantee.
Not mandatory support.
But at least a transparent policy.

Right now, the message feels binary:

Official Sony device → license possible
Everything else → purely community, no long-term path

That is a clear position, and I respect that.
But it also limits the growth potential among sustainability-oriented users who intentionally choose devices like Fairphone.

My argument is not about entitlement.
It is about opportunity.

If users are willing to pay and accept the risks of a non-official device, would there be room for a structured, optional licensing model in the future?

That is the discussion I am trying to open.

1 Like
21

For me, this discussion goes beyond just Sailfish, Android App Support or one specific browser.

We are talking about something larger: digital independence.

There are small companies in Europe like Jolla.
There are sustainable hardware manufacturers like SHIFTphone in Germany.
There are community-driven systems like Ubuntu Touch and postmarketOS.

All of them are fighting individually.

Meanwhile, the dominant ecosystems grow stronger.

From a user perspective, this fragmentation is frustrating.
Not because any single project is “bad” — but because they rarely build structured alliances.

If sustainable hardware like Fairphone or SHIFTphone exists, and independent operating systems like Sailfish exist, then logically there should be clearer long-term cooperation paths.

Not out of ideology.
Not against anyone.

But because digital sovereignty for citizens requires stability, clarity and collaboration — not isolated efforts.

I am not demanding official support where none was promised.
I am asking whether long-term strategy could evolve toward cooperation rather than parallel survival.

Users who care about privacy and sustainability are not enemies.
They are the natural allies of these projects.

Trust grows where structure and openness meet.

That is the direction I would like to see.

1 Like