Incorrect. There are two separate things here. First, there's the Dev Share program which is opt in to allow projects to make money. This puts a bundleware installer up first that then downloads the main installer as the primary "Download" button with an alternate main installer only link alongside. Projects like FileZilla do this to support their development.
Second, there was a program where some of SourceForge's mirrored projects were distributed in the same fashion. SourceForge does mirroring of open source projects not hosted on SourceForge. SourceForge, in an effort to make more money, used the same bundleware style download installer for projects like GIMP. As GIMP wasn't repackaged in this installer, there was no GPL impact. However, it was distasteful to say the least. After both publishers like GIMP and the wider open source community reacted negatively, SourceForge discontinued the program and announced on their blog that they would not reinstate it. They also stated that they would form an open source community advisory board before implementing any additional open source monetization strategies in the future.
Today, SourceForge has 400,000 projects hosted, many of which are hosted nowhere else, all of which are blocked by uBlock. Of those, about 10 participate in the Dev Share program on an opt in basis to fund their development. No other projects are presented as a bundleware installer by SourceForge. It's been this way for months since soon after the publisher and community backlash and SourceForge's subsequent apology and policy changes.
The exact bundleware you describe is a badware risk, no matter for what reason it is designed. It is badware since you would not install it if the installer did not trick you, and it is a risk since the bundling bets on your inability to catch all the UI patterns designed to make you install it.
I personally deactivated the block after stumbeling over it. The dialogue is straight forward and takes exactly one click to never bother you with the specific rule ever again. (It looks like this: https://i.imgur.com/A7pA5mb.png )
It may be targeted at the tech crowd, but I think this could be said for the whole extension.
I'm not arguing that any bundleware is a badware risk. At all. I was arguing that it's disingenuous to block 400,000 projects on SourceForge because of 10 that do bundleware that's on the less worse end of the spectrum (bad but less bad) while still allowing download sites that have much worse bundleware (closer to or actually malware, 10x offers instead of 2, more dark patterns making it more likely you make a mistake, installers that install bundleware even when you select not to, etc) to get through without an issue.
Second, there was a program where some of SourceForge's mirrored projects were distributed in the same fashion. SourceForge does mirroring of open source projects not hosted on SourceForge. SourceForge, in an effort to make more money, used the same bundleware style download installer for projects like GIMP. As GIMP wasn't repackaged in this installer, there was no GPL impact. However, it was distasteful to say the least. After both publishers like GIMP and the wider open source community reacted negatively, SourceForge discontinued the program and announced on their blog that they would not reinstate it. They also stated that they would form an open source community advisory board before implementing any additional open source monetization strategies in the future.
Today, SourceForge has 400,000 projects hosted, many of which are hosted nowhere else, all of which are blocked by uBlock. Of those, about 10 participate in the Dev Share program on an opt in basis to fund their development. No other projects are presented as a bundleware installer by SourceForge. It's been this way for months since soon after the publisher and community backlash and SourceForge's subsequent apology and policy changes.