The server itself is proprietary and the Snap client is hardcoded to point to Canonical's servers (repos are not configurable).
There have been proof-of-concept server implementations by third parties, and some of those have been open-source. But IIRC none of them are maintained or used anywhere.
It could be worse, but at the end of the day it still just seems like a controlling, proto-monopolistic design compared to something like Flatpak, or to any traditional package management repos on Linux.
> The server itself is proprietary and the Snap client is hardcoded to point to Canonical's servers (repos are not configurable).
So fork it and change the code. This isn't the definition of "proprietary". There's still nothing stopping people from having their own snap store except a lil effort.
A client/server application where the server is proprietary isn't really a free software application as far as I'm concerned, even if the server is easy to clone. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I expect better from 'open-source' in my personal computing life, and competitors seem happy to deliver it.
If that makes me fussy, oh well.
There have been proof-of-concept server implementations by third parties, and some of those have been open-source. But IIRC none of them are maintained or used anywhere.
It could be worse, but at the end of the day it still just seems like a controlling, proto-monopolistic design compared to something like Flatpak, or to any traditional package management repos on Linux.