Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
You can install and run non-free applications (like games or the nvidia driver) on Linux distributions. Does that make Linux non-free?
I would argue that restricting an OS to run exclusively FOSS code robs the user of the first guarantee of free software: "the freedom to use the program for any purpose".
But play store is the only blob that is directly endorsed by devs
Please explain why you think they're endorsing it.
I don't think it is possible to run android without any binary blobs from vendors or other. They try to limit it as much as possible, while still remaining practical and offer compatibility.
Yea the firmware always remains proprietary.
Open hardware has open source firmware.
We don't have all that much of it yet, but it exists.
Yes but were talking about GrapheneOS here and afaik it only supports Google Pixel phones that have proprietary hardware and firmware.
Firmware I get. But they also endorse play store too
It depends where you draw the line of what is GrapheneOS. Everything they do is free and open-source. If you build it for emulator or Waydroid, it would indeed be FOSS: no proprietary blobs in sight unless you count your host's GPU firmware to taint the whole thing. The build scripts to dump your firmware blobs from your own device, building GrapheneOS, bunding it all back together, sign the build and flash it on your device, all open-source.
The only part where blobs are involved is the downloadable prebuilts which does include the blobs otherwise it wouldn't boot at all. They're not including blobs in their project. They're including the blobs that are already on your device and also downloadable from Google. It's not like they made their own proprietary blobs they hide the source for.
The GNU guys say that's unacceptable as any proprietary software is unacceptable, therefore the whole thing is tainted and worthless. They think the same thing of coreboot/libreboot.
In my opinion, GrepheneOS is fine. It's the best that can be done, and their project in itself is FOSS, even if running it on actual hardware requires a few blobs to be added, and it allows users to opt-in to installing a sandboxed Google package. The same I call Linux FOSS even if it can upload a firmware to my GPU so amdgpu works. At least the entire loading of the firmware is in my control, and I can verify that the blob being uploaded is the one I expect, even if the blob is proprietary.
Nothing that you replace with GrapheneOS is proprietary. The blobs are a no-op. Running sandboxed proprietary code is better. It's a net positive and reclaims some of your freedoms by being able to control and monitor the sandbox.
But what about endorsing play store when alternatives are available? Yes it's sandboxes but then also other more open solutions exists
Is it really endorsement to offer the user upon initial setup to install it, along with fdroid?
I'd say that's just general compatibility, most users have at least one play store app they can't just stop using, in my case that would be the banking apps I need to be able to pay online.
They are actually against Fdroid and endorse only play store. ONLY play store is available in their official appstore.
The article that user links is referring to GrapheneOS (and other OSS software) as not being "free software" - and they (GNU) delves into it more here.
Basically, GNU is saying software shouldn't claim to be free and open source if they contain non free binaries / other non-free blobs.
The nuances between FOSS and OSS can be confusing. GrapheneOS is not claiming to be FOSS.
GNU does not dictate what is counted as free meow :/
in my opinion it can still be counted as free if it plays nicely with nonfree stuff. the whole Free thibg shouldnt dictate that free software is wholly hostile to nonfree softwarez
No, the FSF does define what free (as in freedom) software is. There are different licenses for linking (not running) against non free stuff. But being able to run proprietary programs doesn't make something not free. Even on GNU certified free distros, one can run proprietary software. It just doesn't come with it by default.
There's also a looser (imo) definition of open source software which doesn't maintained all four freedoms.
i suppose if ur a language perscriptivist it does, but like.. idm free OSes coming with nonfree drivers. theyr doing the best they can in a hostile environment
Read the GNU definition of it:
The first part of it correctly explains that the only non-FOSS parts are firmware. The rest of it is unfortunately bullshit, because it claims that because GrapheneOS includes an optional method for installing Google services it's not degoogled. This makes absolutely no sense, by default there are no Google apps/services at all present on GrapheneOS and it never connects to Google servers. But yes, except for some required firmware GrapheneOS is fully FOSS.
What else are you going to use, Replicant? Let us know how that goes. Pick your battles.
I was saying wouldn't endorsing play store as an approved appstore is bad? Especially there are FOSS alternatives
Yes but if that's disabled by default and it warns that's anti-libre malware, Arch Linux does that and gets people off Windows, so who gives a fuck.
Well they couldv'e given the FOSS alternatives along with the play apps, now only play apps can be installed from the official appstore
And even replicant still has some proprietary blobs!
They have the goal and intention to replace them all with open firmware and drivers eventually