J

@clmj
1 Followers
29 Following
47 Posts

Big Tech is at it again.

Some of you might have seen this already. Google has announced a new policy for Android app developers, which would require them to seek Google’s permission if they want to distribute their apps outside of the Google Play Store (on their own website or on alternative app stores). This would entail:

1) agreeing to their terms and conditions
2) paying a fee
3) uploading a government ID

Which is wrong on so many levels. Nobody should be forced to register with Google if they don’t want to use their services.

In doing so they would be extending their gatekeeping (tentacles) into distribution channels where they’re just not a legitimate authority.

At Vivaldi, we believe you have the right to run whatever software you want on a device you own. That’s why we’ve co-signed this open letter, together with other 53 organisations, requesting Google to back off on the proposed policy before it enters into force.

(Plus, they have have a pretty cool logo 😄)

https://keepandroidopen.org/open-letter/

An Open Letter to Google regarding Mandatory Developer Registration for Android App Distribution

Open Letter to Google Regarding Mandatory Developer Registration for Third-Party App Distribution

🎉📱 Mobile security doesn’t have to be scary!
Our friends @NowSecureMobile turned MASVS, MASTG and MASWE into a super-easy, infographic, perfect for devs, testers and security pros alike!
Check it out:
https://www.nowsecure.com/blog/2026/01/21/owasp-mobile-application-security-explained-how-to-put-masvs-mastg-and-maswe-into-practice/

Anyone up for a sticker swap?

We send you one of these, you send us something else? Let us see what you got 👀

(Please boost for reach!)

@Vivaldi
Windows.
Bring popcorn, this is a developing story… 🍿
(From Threads)

The #FDroid website has a new banner on top to remind visitors that #Google did not change course and #Android will be locked-down in under 200 days.

If you care about the freedom to control your devices and care about the privacy of you data, please contact your representative and make your voice heard.

https://keepandroidopen.org/ (thanks @marcprux) has the resources to guide you.

We know users will rarely visit the site so the Client(s) will get a banner soon too.

Thank you for your support!

Keep Android Open

Advocating for Android as a free, open platform for everyone to build apps on.

In 1991, a uni student from Finland started a "hobby" project because he couldn't afford to pay expensive Unix license that could run on a commodity hardware. At the time, he told on the mailing list that his project wouldn't be anything "big or professional."

It turned out that he was totally wrong.

Happy 56th Birthday to the creator of Linux kernel and git, Linus Torvalds! May you live healthy and happy forever. Thank you for all your hard work and providing us employment and keep it FLOSS😊

GPLv2 affirmation…

I don’t generally post here as people have probably noticed, but here’s a pdf of a recent court ruling, and this turns out to be the easiest way for me to link to a copy of it, since I don’t really maintain any web presence normally and I don’t want to post pdf’s to the kernel mailing lists or anything like that.

And the reason I want to post about it, is that it basically validates my long-held views that the GPLv2 is about making source code available, not controlling the access to the hardware that it runs on.

The court case itself is a mess of two bad parties: Vizio and the SFC. Both of them look horribly bad in court - for different reasons.

Vizio used Linux in their TVs without originally making the source code available, and that was obviously not ok.

And the Software Freedom Conservancy then tries to make the argument that the license forces you to make your installation keys etc available, even though that is not the case, and the reason why the kernel is very much GPLv2 only. The people involved know that very well, but have argued otherwise in court.

End result: both parties have acted badly. But at least Vizio did fix their behavior, even if it apparently took this lawsuit to do so. I can’t say the same about the SFC.

Please, SFC - stop using the kernel for your bogus legal arguments where you try to expand the GPLv2 to be something it isn’t. You just look like a bunch of incompetent a**holes.

The only party that looks competent here is the judge, which in this ruling says

Plaintiff contends the phrases, “machine-readable” and “scripts used to control compilation and installation” support their assertion in response to special interrogatory no. 4 that Defendant should “deliver files such that a person of ordinary skill can compile the source code into a functional executable and install it onto the same device, such that all features of the original program are retained, without undue difficulty.”

The language of the Agreements is unambiguous. It does not impose the duty which is the subject of this motion.

Read as a whole, the Agreements require Vizio to make the source code available in such a manner that the source code can be readily obtained and modified by Plaintiff or other third parties. While source code is defined to include “the scripts used to control compilation and installation,” this does not mean that Vizio must allow users to reinstall the software, modified or otherwise, back onto its smart TVs in a manner that preserves all features of the original program and/or ensures the smart TVs continue to function properly. Rather, in the context of the Agreements, the disputed language means that Vizio must provide the source code in a manner that allows the source code to be obtained and revised by Plaintiff or others for use in other applications.

In other words, Vizio must ensure the ability of users to copy, change/modify, and distribute the source code, including using the code in other free programs consistent with the Preamble and Terms and Conditions of the Agreements. However, nothing in the language of the Agreements requires Vizio to allow modified source code to be reinstalled on its devices while ensuring the devices remain operable after the source code is modified. If this was the intent of the Agreements, the Agreements could have been readily modified to state that users must be permitted to modify and reinstall modified software on products which use the program while ensuring the products continue to function. The absence of such language is dispositive and there is no basis to find that such a term was implied here. Therefore, the motion is granted.

IOW, this makes it clear that yes, you have to make source code available, but no, the GPLv2 does not in any way force you to then open up your hardware.

My intention - and the GPLv2 - is clear: the kernel copyright licence covers the software, and does not extend to the hardware it runs on. The same way the kernel copyright license does not extend to user space programs that run on it.

Help me, please! This is my Reddit thread. This is a crisis.

If you cannot provide me tech support, then please share this post for signal boosting.

Thank you.

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux4noobs/comments/1pqairt/linux_partition_crisis_i_need_data_recovery_help/

Currently @snookerbot and @amateursnooker are not updating -> there is an issue currently being worked on with snooker.org

I will let you know when it is back! @edenGD02 @charly22