[JohnTHaller]

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.

SourceForge currently has about 10 projects that opt in to their Dev Share program. Every one is available for download without using the bundleware installer. And their custom bundleware installer is far clearer about what it is than the majority of the commercial bundelware installers out there, though, like all bundleware installers, it does still make use of dark patterns which I am not a fan of (see also: Avast updates, Flash updates, Java updates all of which pre-bundle Google Chrome and trick you into installing via dark patterns).

So, all 400,000 projects on SourceForge are blocked permanently with no possibility of unblocking because of a few weeks of legal but unethical bad behavior that SourceForge publicly backtracked from and no longer engages in.

Punishing bad behavior makes a lot of sense. But when someone reacts in a positive way to that punishment (stopping it, publicly talking about it, setting up a committee before exploring further options, etc), it makes sense to remove the block. Otherwise, once you're blocked, there's no reason to reform.

[Veratyr]

I think the difference in opinion between you and some of the people you're replying to mainly comes down to "bundleware". You use that word a lot but to me, "bundleware" is malware.

[JohnTHaller]

I'm no fan of bundleware. I've been running PortableApps.com for over 10 years with over 500,000,000 app downloads all 100% bundleware free. Our format disallows bundleware and many of our users use our software on their local machines due to that.

uBlock didn't start blocking SourceForge because of the Dev Share opt-in bundleware program. They started blocking SourceForge because of the GIMP situation which SourceForge backed off of as a result.

uBlock isn't designed to block bundleware. uBlock lets tens of thousands of download sites and software publishers that distribute bundleware. Most of them distribute far worse bundleware, far more of it (some come with 10 offers or more), and use far more dark patterns to trick users into installing than anything distributed by SourceForge. But uBlock still specifically blocks SourceForge despite only about 10 of 400,000 projects using it, all of which have opted in to the program.

Essentially, uBlock appears to be blocking based on the whims of the developer rather than any balanced and fairly applied policy. That's one reason I decided to stop recommending it to others.