azuth

Taiwan claims sovereignty over mainland China, I doubt Venezuela does the same with the US.

thank you, i think i saw that somwhere before. is it really true that the haressment is made up? like i honestly dont know

The one making the claims should provide the evidence.

and does it really has an impact on the eco system? i never really thought abou it…

Yes, it pushes for a Google monopoly in hardware, it creates a false narrative that there is no difference in privacy and/or security between alternative Android versions and ones by vendors. This further entrenches Google’s control of Android as it limits the options for Android users.

And i guess fair point that this is a security flaw considering the phone users beeing targeted… But like i still kinda think hardware backed security is important and also very crucial is, that the more devices they supporty the less recourses they have… I think considering how long it is since pixel 10 released and it is still not supported, would make me guess that they dont have like any free time really to do it at all ^^

I do believe Google has taken decisions that forced them to look for a new OEM, I am not sure if does affect the Pixel 10.

No GrapheneOS is not just calling them out on lack of security.

It’s apparently from their discord, so it took me a while to find it again.

It’s not about the personality of it’s directors, it’s about it’s effect on the (alternative) Android ecosystem as a whole, which is not just about security but also privacy and user control.

Even with regards to security, their choice of limiting devices apparently makes their users targets for extra scrutiny and harassment. That does have actual implications for people whose threat model includes authorities unless they already are guaranteed to be targets.

I don’t need a phone, GrapheneOS needs one now that Google is trying to force them out. I wonder if their new phone will actually meet all the requirements, if it comes out.

As for complaining, GrapheneOS is the one bitching about other Android versions existing since forever. Now, they 've started making unsubstantiated claims of them attacking them somehow.

Yes, before Google made phone on it’s own they supported some Nexus devices (google-partnered) and the Samsung Galaxy S4.

No it’s not. This is a recent development that has not yet actually come to fruition. It may exist in 2026.

Before that GrapheneOS dismissed any idea of targeting other phones than the ones build by one of the most anti-privacy companies on earth, that seeks to consolidate control of Android.

In my opinion both the evident ego of of the project lead as well as his naivety (tethering the project to Google) are huge red flags despite any assumed technical superiority.

Existing, probably.

Well it’s science fiction. Being ‘genetically perfect’ (rofl) will impart less of an advantage than actually existing, mundane factors such as wealth and which country you were born in. Hell, the biggest advantage they could get is making sure their children is of the ‘right’ color.

I do not even think the biggest assholes like say Musk would genetically modify their children. He already thinks he is perfect.

I can also think of a few factors that would disadvantage poor people more than lack of eugenics.

Lack of healthcare. Climate change leading to people having to abandon their homeland and also exacerbating another factor. Bad nutrition. Bad education in combination with disinformation by wealth controlled media.

Genetic modification is not really a problem. It could also help some people if we fix our politics and make sure people get access to healthcare based on needs rather than means.

Seriously, fiction is not necessarily a good guide for politics.

It’s fiction.

You can find actual discrimination based on genetics or wealth or class into the present and past of the real world.

Why would a FOSS program, barely able to pay for developers and/or infrastructure give away money for marketing?

It’s highly unlikely that the extra users will result in enough donations to even recoup the funds or significant volunteered development.

I agree that Play integrity is a huge problem and a way for Google to maintain control of Android.

However a Linux phone wouldn’t solve that at least in the beginning.

The devs who don’t allow apps to run on devices that do not pass Play integrity are unlikely to make a Linux phone app.

That does not make sense. Even in the worse scenarios Android would be more open than Apple and there would be Android options unaffected by this. Not many and not the most mainstream, though certainly more so than non-Android Linux phones.

But compared to a picking a non-Android Linux phone it makes even less sense. Unfortunately it’s true.

Unfortunatel, even here on Lemmy, that is a not techier/fossier than the mainstream, a lot of people say they will switch to… IOS.

Doubtful, phone vendors already had access to binary blobs to run Linux (Android) on them.

It’s no surprise Valve who is buying those SOCs is also provided with them.

Alexandropolis is 45km from the border, Istanbul is another 200km on a straight line (thus more).

There’s an international border crossing in between and probably potential for heavy traffic around Istanbul.

Edit: stupid math mistake

This is untrue. Legally speaking you “own” the software, but what you can do with the software is limited by both the copyright and the license. Often this license will say that the creator still owns the software, so by accepting the license, you no longer own the software. Today you often have to accept the license before you even download the software. So you are correct that the user doesn’t own the software, but that’s not the default. For example, FOSS licenses do not specify that the creator continues to own the software, therefore ownership is given to the user.

You have a major misunderstanding of copyright law. Licenses do not need to keep or ‘turn back’ ‘ownership’ of software to the developers, copyright law does that. If you get hold of software without accepting a license, you do not become it’s owner, you in fact have no right to use it and could be sued for doing so by the holder of it’s copyright.

takes your advice I wasn’t giving advice. I’m saying that the decision is up to the court. But if you want legal advice (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer): Do not do anything of which the legality still has to be decided by a court.

Well if someone was convinced by your opinion that the law does not cover FOSS software he would be fucked. Hopefully he will also read your advice and act accordingly.

That does not mean FOSS software is not affected I never said that. I said that FOSS software is affected differently if you take the law by the letter (which the courts don’t have to do).

Which is wrong. Thankfully because your opinion is that the user is the owner would mean the law would fuck over way more people.

You could just admit that the law if bad for all software including FOSS.

Only facts can be right or wrong.

Opinions (such as that the Earth is flat) can obviously be wrong. Facts cannot. Look up the definition of fact.

Anyway, I know there are applications that don’t have binaries, but most do. I am not a lawyer, but if I’m not mistaken, source code is under U.S. law protected by the first amendment while binaries are not.

You admit applications are not necessarily binary, the law does not mention binary or source code or anything like that where it defines applications. You are just grasping at straws to justify an indefensible position, that whoever possesses a binary is it’s owner.

Which is obviously untrue. Ownership of software means ownership of it’s copyright. It’s been made very clear in the last decades that you (legally) don’t even own software that you pay for. You own a license to use the software.

You cannot argue, in good faith at least, that this is what is intended by the law. First it would be spelled out and secondly it would mean that for all applications, not just FOSS ones, the people paying the fines would be the users, $2500 for each app they install that’s in violation. Which is obviously not what’s intended.

I am not saying that the law is FOSS friendly. I am saying that the law does not cover all FOSS software despite it being the clear intend of the lawmakers to cover all software. In such cases it will have to be decided by courts (I believe courts still have this function for state laws), whether it also applies to FOSS software.

Unfortunately it does since it does not discriminate. If anybody that can be effectively prosecuted (i.e. US/California resident) takes your advice and takes it to court, he is getting fucked.

What I am saying is that the lawmakers clearly do not understand the topic they are trying to regulate.

No shit. That does not mean FOSS software is not affected. You also do not understand the topic or choose to not understand it because it’s spells trouble for FOSS. But pretending everything is ok does not make it so. FOSS projects either need to implement it or make sure they isolate themselves from US/California jurisdiction.

That’s your opinion. It’s wrong. There even are applications that do not have binaries at all. There is no reason to believe the legislators would not want them covered by this law, it certainly does not say so.

It also does not make a difference, owner of the copyright of a binary is the owner of the copyright of the source code. Compiling does not remove the copyright of the source code author as the binary is clearly derived from the source code. The person who compiles the source code does not even get any copyright since it’s not a creative process.

You are not helping FOSS by trying to portray the law as FOSS friendly when it isn’t. Unfortunately the law rarely is FOSS friendly if not due to hostility due to indifference/ignorance on the part of the legislators.

Copyleft is not a legal term. It’s a term for (foss) licenses that require users to keep the same terms when redistributing software. Such licenses do not actually transfer copyright. I fail to see how this would exempt foss developers.