Android has always been a fairly open platform, especially if you were deliberate about getting it that way, but we’ve seen in recent months an extremely rapid devolution of the Android ecosystem:

  1. The closing of development of an increasing number of components in AOSP.
  2. Samsung, Xiaomi and OnePlus have removed the option of bootloader unlocking on all of their devices. I suspect Google is not far behind.
  3. Google implementing Play Integrity API and encouraging developers to implement it. Notably the EU’s own identity verification wallet requires this, in stark contrast to their own laws and policies, despite the protest of hundreds on Github.
  4. And finally, the mandatory implementation of developer verification across Android systems. Yes, if you’re running a 3rd-party OS like GOS you won’t be directly affected by this, but it will impact 99.9% of devices, and I foresee many open source developers just opting out of developing apps for Android entirely as a result. We’ve already seen SyncThing simply discontinue development for this reason, citing issues with Google Play Store. They’ve also repeatedly denied updates for NextCloud. And we’ve already seen Google targeting any software intended to circumvent ads, labeling them in the system as “dangerous” and “untrusted”. This will most certainly carry into their new “verification” system.

Google once competed with Apple for customers. But in a world where Google walks away from the biggest antitrust trial since 1998 with yet another slap on the wrist, competition is dead, and Google is taking notes from Apple about what they can legally get away with.

Android as we know it is dead. And/or will be dead very soon. We need an open replacement.

  • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
    0·
    6 days ago

    QT uses one or another, either GPLv3/LGPLv3/GPLv2 or privative. Poisoning open source? If you refer to the fact that they allow a closed source licence, yes I also dislike that. But how is GPLv3 poisoning anything? If you want to use and modify/contribute to the QT project then you have to maintain user freedoms unless you pay QT for their rights. In the end term, the user is always respected since contributions to base qt are always free software. With only a GPL licence then the developers would need to share source code for their distributions. The Multiple-Licence allows third party developers to gain “fully-paid-ownership” which allows them to close source it.

    Also since QT it’s allowed to be shiped with LGPL third party devs can close source their parts of code that link against QT.

    So it’s basically an interesting way of having a permissible licence while keeping the QT base fully libre.

    Probably you refer to the availability that open source philosophy gives. Yeah, that is the principal difference between libre software and open software. Open software advocates for fully openness for the sake of the developers no matter what they want to make later with it, libre software advocates for the source code of the end user.