> @hfiguiere / @bbhtt — a clarification question before I close this out Regarding the `objectbox-c` rejection: I want to make sure I understand the policy correctly, because I’m seeing something inconsistent. `flatpak-flutter`’s `foreign_deps.json` — which @bbhtt recommended — ships prebuilt native binaries for at least two packages: `pdfium_flutter` (prebuilt PDFium from pdfium-binaries, Apache 2.0) and `audiotags` (prebuilt `linux.tar.gz` from the audiotags GitHub releases). Several apps listed in the flatpak-flutter README as successfully published on Flathub use those entries. `objectbox-c` is not in `flatpak-flutter`’s registry, so I’m not claiming exact equivalence — but the broader pattern is the same: prebuilt native binaries distributed under permissive licenses, bundled via Flatpak sources. On reflection I’m also dropping the “Mere Aggregation” argument I made in the PR — the GPL FAQ is clear that modules running linked together in a shared address space “almost surely means combining them into one program”, and the FAQ explicitly states that containers do not change this analysis. So dynamically linking `libobjectbox.so` into a GPL-3.0 app does constitute a combined work, and the GPL’s source-availability requirement applies to the whole. Since `objectbox-c` has no source available, that requirement can’t be satisfied. The license conflict is real. That said, the question about `pdfium_flutter` and `audiotags` still stands — both ship prebuilt binaries (Apache 2.0) via `flatpak-flutter` and those apps pass review. Is the difference simply that those libraries are also dynamically linked but their permissive license doesn’t create a conflict with the app’s license? Or is there something else I’m missing about how Flathub evaluates prebuilt binary dependencies? Knowing the answer would help anyone packaging a Flutter app that uses ObjectBox and trying to understand what’s actually allowed on Flathub.

> @hfiguiere / @bbhtt — a clarification question before I close this out Regarding the `objectbox-c` rejection: I want to make sure I understand the policy correctly, because I’m seeing something inconsistent. `flatpak-flutter`’s `foreign_deps.json` — which @bbhtt recommended — ships prebuilt native binaries for at least two packages: `pdfium_flutter` (prebuilt PDFium from pdfium-binaries, Apache 2.0) and `audiotags` (prebuilt `linux.tar.gz` from the audiotags GitHub releases). Several apps listed in the flatpak-flutter README as successfully published on Flathub use those entries. `objectbox-c` is not in `flatpak-flutter`’s registry, so I’m not claiming exact equivalence — but the broader pattern is the same: prebuilt native binaries distributed under permissive licenses, bundled via Flatpak sources. On reflection I’m also dropping the “Mere Aggregation” argument I made in the PR — the GPL FAQ is clear that modules running linked together in a shared address space “almost surely means combining them into one program”, and the FAQ explicitly states that containers do not change this analysis. So dynamically linking `libobjectbox.so` into a GPL-3.0 app does constitute a combined work, and the GPL’s source-availability requirement applies to the whole. Since `objectbox-c` has no source available, that requirement can’t be satisfied. The license conflict is real. That said, the question about `pdfium_flutter` and `audiotags` still stands — both ship prebuilt binaries (Apache 2.0) via `flatpak-flutter` and those apps pass review. Is the difference simply that those libraries are also dynamically linked but their permissive license doesn’t create a conflict with the app’s license? Or is there something else I’m missing about how Flathub evaluates prebuilt binary dependencies? Knowing the answer would help anyone packaging a Flutter app that uses ObjectBox and trying to understand what’s actually allowed on Flathub.

> @hfiguiere / @bbhtt — a clarification question before I close this out Regarding the `objectbox-c` rejection: I want to make sure I understand the policy correctly, because I’m seeing something inconsistent. `flatpak-flutter`’s `foreign_deps.json` — which @bbhtt recommended — ships prebuilt native binaries for at least two packages: `pdfium_flutter` (prebuilt PDFium from pdfium-binaries, Apache 2.0) and `audiotags` (prebuilt `linux.tar.gz` from the audiotags GitHub releases). Several apps listed in the flatpak-flutter README as successfully published on Flathub use those entries. `objectbox-c` is not in `flatpak-flutter`’s registry, so I’m not claiming exact equivalence — but the broader pattern is the same: prebuilt native binaries distributed under permissive licenses, bundled via Flatpak sources. On reflection I’m also dropping the “Mere Aggregation” argument I made in the PR — the GPL FAQ is clear that modules running linked together in a shared address space “almost surely means combining them into one program”, and the FAQ explicitly states that containers do not change this analysis. So dynamically linking `libobjectbox.so` into a GPL-3.0 app does constitute a combined work, and the GPL’s source-availability requirement applies to the whole. Since `objectbox-c` has no source available, that requirement can’t be satisfied. The license conflict is real. That said, the question about `pdfium_flutter` and `audiotags` still stands — both ship prebuilt binaries (Apache 2.0) via `flatpak-flutter` and those apps pass review. Is the difference simply that those libraries are also dynamically linked but their permissive license doesn’t create a conflict with the app’s license? Or is there something else I’m missing about how Flathub evaluates prebuilt binary dependencies? Knowing the answer would help anyone packaging a Flutter app that uses ObjectBox and trying to understand what’s actually allowed on Flathub.

> @hfiguiere / @bbhtt — a clarification question before I close this out Regarding the `objectbox-c` rejection: I want to make sure I understand the policy correctly, because I’m seeing something inconsistent. `flatpak-flutter`’s `foreign_deps.json` — which @bbhtt recommended — ships prebuilt native binaries for at least two packages: `pdfium_flutter` (prebuilt PDFium from pdfium-binaries, Apache 2.0) and `audiotags` (prebuilt `linux.tar.gz` from the audiotags GitHub releases). Several apps listed in the flatpak-flutter README as successfully published on Flathub use those entries. `objectbox-c` is not in `flatpak-flutter`’s registry, so I’m not claiming exact equivalence — but the broader pattern is the same: prebuilt native binaries distributed under permissive licenses, bundled via Flatpak sources. On reflection I’m also dropping the “Mere Aggregation” argument I made in the PR — the GPL FAQ is clear that modules running linked together in a shared address space “almost surely means combining them into one program”, and the FAQ explicitly states that containers do not change this analysis. So dynamically linking `libobjectbox.so` into a GPL-3.0 app does constitute a combined work, and the GPL’s source-availability requirement applies to the whole. Since `objectbox-c` has no source available, that requirement can’t be satisfied. The license conflict is real. That said, the question about `pdfium_flutter` and `audiotags` still stands — both ship prebuilt binaries (Apache 2.0) via `flatpak-flutter` and those apps pass review. Is the difference simply that those libraries are also dynamically linked but their permissive license doesn’t create a conflict with the app’s license? Or is there something else I’m missing about how Flathub evaluates prebuilt binary dependencies? Knowing the answer would help anyone packaging a Flutter app that uses ObjectBox and trying to understand what’s actually allowed on Flathub.

Read and write audio metadata in Flutter. Supports multiple formats.