GrapheneOS is partenered with a major OEM to release compatible devices in 2027. The OEM will publicly announce this partnership in March 2026.

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116092580774968482

conspiracy theory time: “AI” is a psyop designed to manufacture consent for unpopular internet regulations such as this one. We used to take anonymity and privacy for granted and now every other website demands you to “prove you are human” (my instance is unfortunately no exception… its a necessary evil).

The thing is, there already is a flow to enable “unknown sources” with the appropriate scare messages. So whatever “advanced flow” they’re going to come up with is going to be more involved than that.

My guess would be something similar to the bootloader unlock flow, where it resets the device and sets it to some “unsafe” state similar to a rooted/unlocked device which banking apps etc. can detect and refuse to work with.

I would say there is a difference between constructive criticism and an “attack” and although the privsec article does bring up valid points* I would still regard it as the latter (despite their claims of objectivity), because they ultimately conclude that its premise is inherently flawed regardless of implementation details. They claim

This article aims to be purely technical. It is not an attack on F-Droid or their mission.

Yet while the authors claim to be “objective and technical” its not hard to notice all the “attacks on F-Droid’s mission” in this article, from the reference to F-Droid’s “ridiculous inclusion policy” to all the dismissive references to “ideology.” The message is clear, that F-Droid’s “mission” is Stupid and Ideological and the problems F-Droid aims to solve are not real. Thus, their suggested “alternatives” are just regular app stores that don’t enforce any of the guarantees that F-Droid does (namely, that the app corresponds to its source code and does not include proprietary components), because those guarantees aren’t worth anything** to the “Objective and Technical” people of privsec - you are Stupid and Ideological if you care about software freedom. In fact, Accrescent even says they allow proprietary software because free software “is not inherently more secure or private” - which is technically true, but very misleading, because free software never has claimed to be “more secure” - it has only ever offered the four freedoms, which as a user I feel entitled to on my own devices, so I only install apps that give me these four freedoms. Far from being “objective and non-ideological” the position of Privsec, Accrescent, and their advocates is that users neither deserve, need, or should want software freedom, as such I would characterize these organizations as hostile to the free software movement even if some of their points are factual.

I will add I am not entirely uncritical of F-Droid either, but my criticisms are more that they aren’t strict enough and should be building as much from source as possible instead of relying on prebuilt Maven dependencies as much as they do. I would also say although as a user I think F-Droid’s inclusion policy is a good thing and not “ridiculous” I agree it does put some amount of burden on developers who I imagine develop for the Google world first and the FOSS world second. It might be a good idea for F-Droid maintainers to take a more active role in, well, maintaining these apps instead of pushing the extra work onto the developers (this is typical in the GNU/Linux world, in which distro maintainers take up all the work to package upstreams, but F-Droid sometimes tries to cosplay as an “app store” despite it being a fundamentally different model).

* aside from a bizarre claim that F-Droid supporting multiple repositories is a Bad Thing because it interferes with, and I quote, “UserManager which can be used to prevent a user from installing third-party apps” - what does this have to do with privacy? I think this also speaks to a deeper conflict between security people and free software people, that being uncritical worship of “security models” even when they harm the user. Accrescent offers more or less the same justification for why it locks the user into their own store/repository, and I think it is subtly dangerous to suggest this is an “alternative” to F-Droid because it has very different values.

** According to one of the writers of that article,

Any better ideas for it are welcome.

Just allow devs to upload their own build with their own keys like Accrescent. It’s not like the whole “audit” system is meaningful anyways.

Of course, characterizing it as an “audit system” is missing the point entirely, but I imagine he knows that. Reducing the four freedoms down to “you can look at the source code and audit it” to then follow it up with “you can’t/aren’t going to audit every app you download so why bother with FOSS anyway” is a favorite rhetorical tactic.

I’ll go through and evaluate the freeness of each item on this list at some point however we’re already not off to a great start - Build engine unfortunately is non-free.

https://github.com/vogonsorg/BuildGDX/blob/master/buildlic.txt

I feel like listing copyright infringement next to actual harms is sort of an “arson, murder, and jaywalking” moment.

But yes, I wouldn’t mind banning discussion of this nonsense as well.

You wouldn’t download a car

Hallucinations, but also not helped by the fact that people (knowingly or not) promote proprietary garbage in FOSS communities. I remember the “reddit answers” feature when I tried it out frequently suggested proprietary crap in “list of best FOSS” type topics.

I always had the impression that the free software idea had a stronger presence in Europe (and, generally, non-Anglo areas) and have generally chalked that up to the fact that the ambiguity of free (as in freedom)/free (as in beer) largely does not exist outside of English. Note that “open” is every bit as ambiguous as “free” here - i’ve had way too many arguments with people who thought “open” just means you can look at the source code (imagine thinking that a store was “open” just because you can look through the window and see products).

However IMO the author goes a bit too far in presenting free software seemingly as some sort of uniquely European concept - he seems to suggest that the creation of Linux came about entirely out of thin air, and almost reads to me like Linus Torvalds originated the idea of copyleft - with no mention whatsoever of the American GNU project upon whose shoulders he stands. Allegedly he was inspired by a talk Richard Stallman gave at his university in 1990.

https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch09.html

Edit: Git also did not come out of thin air, Linux developers were using a proprietary (American) VCS in the beginning, under a gratis license specifically granted for Linux development. The Australian developer Andrew Tridgell is arguably the person most responsible for inciting the development of git, as the proprietary VCS developer withdrew the gratis licenses once he developed a free tool which could interoperate with the proprietary servers.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/mcvoy.html

(That proprietary tool is now licensed under the Apache 2.0 license, but as far as I know no one uses it anymore)

deleted by creator

Ultimately it’s your work so it’s up to you how you want to release it. BSD/MIT aren’t really any more or less free than the GPL because they still guarantee the four freedoms. The GPL just prevents downstream projects from denying those four freedoms further down stream, which is seen as important in the free software movement, but it doesn’t have to be to you.

One thing to keep in mind with these permissive or “pushover” type licenses although they are free software licenses, normalizing them means that the proprietary software industry ultimately gets to choose what is allowed to be released as free software. There is a warning that “business friendly” free software licensing does not ultimately mean business will be friendly back, especially in an age where there is increasing concern over proprietary software companies taking advantage without either giving back nor funding upstream projects.

I would say not running Windows is itself a practical benefit. I would also say the four freedoms constitute a very practical benefit (even if the software you’re running on top of the OS is proprietary).

I think it’s even worse than that. I imagine the point is to mislead people into believing that privacy laws mandate obnoxious banners in order to get them to oppose said laws.

FOSS bros stay winning

This is a web wrapper for several proprietary social apps. It is effectively a browser locked into a pre-approved set of URLs. Just use a real browser.

I do not believe FUTO’s campaign to redefine open source has had a positive effect on the open source movement, given all the confusion it has caused. Maybe its “ownership” of Immich has had a positive effect on Immich, but I wouldn’t know.

It is worth noting, according to Louis Rossmann, he stopped working for FUTO in early 2025 (“almost a year ago”). Here is his response to this article. Posting for information not because I agree with him. I still think Silicon Valley billionaire Eron Wolf-in-sheeps-clothing is a shady character for trying to redefine open source.

I disagree with this take. As someone who feels entitled to the four freedoms with every program I run, proprietary is a dealbreaker. Crypto and “AI” crap can be disabled or removed. If the choice were strictly between Vivaldi and Brave, Brave would be the better option. Fortunately we have better choices.

I don’t use Brave, I use Librewolf (or Ungoogled-Chromium if I need Chromium). I suggested that a “debraved” browser might be the best chromium browser, but apparently Helium is close to this (I haven’t heard of it until today).

Vivaldi being proprietary makes it worse than Brave, even with Brave’s controversies. But I would still rather use Librewolf, but there is even Ungoogled-Chromium if you really need it.

There is definitely a space for a “deBraved” browser that keeps the good parts. That would be the best chromium browser.

Unfortunately Seal has not had a release in over a year, since October 2024. It may still work but due to a recent (November 2025) change in yt-dlp an external JavaScript runtime is now required for full YouTube support.

There is YTDLnis as an alternative. It’s on F-Droid but for some reason the page for it 404’s (it’s clearly there in my client though).