1478 points by gumby271 154 days ago | 564 comments on HN
| Moderate positive
Contested
Editorial · v3.7· 2026-02-28 07:35:41 0
Summary Digital Freedom & Software Rights Advocates
F-Droid, a free and open-source Android app repository, publishes a position statement opposing Google's mandatory developer registration requirement. The piece explicitly advocates for digital freedom, privacy protection, transparency, and developer autonomy as fundamental human rights aligned with UDHR principles, framing F-Droid's open-source distribution model as superior to centralized corporate control and calling for regulatory intervention and citizen action to preserve software as a commons.
I was waiting for fdroid's voice about this. Google's move is as bad as I initially thought.
This makes me a bit sad honestly, android development is getting worse every year.
I wonder if the same will happen to web as well.
Sadly, our current age of computing is getting locked in devices.
Not only most computing today is SoC with closed drivers but it's actively locking the user.
Ironically it all started with Cydia and "hacking" the iPhone until executives understood they can make a cut.
The EU did help to some extent by requesting Apple to enable non-appstore apps. but sadly, instead of doing the right thing of simply having a user switch that allows me to decide if I want to put my device at risk, they went with provisioning that seems to be agreed.
So now, we're getting the same slap from Google/Android which I must say very strangely gets blessing from very specific governments:
> The requirement goes into effect in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand. At this point, any app installed on a certified device in these regions must be registered by a verified developer.
I still haven't seen anyone discuss the issues with distributing applications containing GPLv3 components under these new rules given the clause (from the GPLv3):
> “Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
At the moment, the workaround here is that keys can technically just be generated on the fly (with some caveats). With Google's new requirements, that's not possible.
What a disaster this will be. The end of any really open phones. By the time I cannot sideload apps or torrent onto my device, I might as well move to an iPhone and at least get less data tracking and better security.
I turned on "Advanced Protection" a couple weeks ago, and promptly turned it off the other day when it blocked f-droid updates. What a scam android has become.
This whole situation sucks. I enjoy F-Droid exactly. Because I can use stores like F-Droid or just download a package from github and be able to run it on my phone. That going away for corporation and governmental greed is just... Sigh.
While Google are capable of being evil all on their own I wonder if the regulatory environment companies are facing around the world is contributing. It is going to lead to increasingly restricted systems with less choice for consumers.
I recently tried to install Thunderbird email on my 17 year old's phone so he could access our self-hosted email for education, jobs, government things that young adults require. After jumping through hoops with age verification it turned out not to be allowed for his age for some unfathomable reason. Increasingly content providers, app stores, os providers etc are coming under chilling industry codes here requiring age verification and age restriction. So I used f-droid so my young adult could start making applications.
What I see as freedom might look a lot like circumvention to regulators.
As all the big commercial services step into line with government codes and turn restrictions to their commercial advantage I am not sure where that leaves those of us who use FOSS software. My apps come from Flathub, arch, debian, f-droid not Apple, Google, or Microsoft stores. My devices come OS free when possible. The volunteers involved haven't participated in the development of industry codes and aren't in a position do all the compliance stuff that governments increasingly demand from tech companies. How much longer will free and open source be tolerated?
F-droid has been stellar in steering the alternative app store environment over the past 15 years or so, and I'd heed their call on this.
A small call to any googler on the thread - put your support towards this internally. I understand the internal dynamics, and it may seem current option is best amongst imperfect choices, but in this case F-droid is right in that closing out anonymous (but good) software is a line crossed with peril for any open ecosystem. Today it's play store, tomorrow it will be the web, and that will have a significant negative impact on Google.
> F-Droid is different. It distributes apps that have been validated to work for the user’s interests, rather than for the interests of the app’s distributors.
F-Droid's curation saved me at least once when I wanted to upgrade my Simple™ apps and couldn't find them in F-Droid anymore, which led me to learn that SimpleMobileTools was sold to a company that closed sourced the apps[1] and that there's a free fork called Fossify[2].
Had I installed these through Google Play, they wouldn't have cared about this particular change and I would've gotten whatever random upgrades the new owners pushed.
Each app store's policies have their pros and cons, but that's why it's so important to have a diversity of marketplaces.
I've built a couple of tools for myself over the years, some of which includes android apps. They were never released to the public.
If we go down this path, I will stop all development on android (and at work too, as it is up to me how we deliver, coincidentally). I implore all other developers to resist this. This will completely lock down the platform forever, there will be no going back.The entire reason why android is so attractive is because we have linux in our palms and all the amazing benefits of that. If google wanted to do the right thing, they would go in the opposite direction and make it easier to gain root access on mainstream devices instead of locking it down further.
It seems the only last bastion left is Firefox, so I will be focusing on making all my tools work well on Firefox (mobile & desktop) instead of app ecosystems.
We need to start treating phones differently. We're entering a world where we can't choose what we run on them. Their primary purpose is to gather data on us and serve us advertising, they're engineered for addiction, yet engaging in the world is immensely difficult without one.
Phones are as much a burden as benefit in 2025, and our behaviour towards them should reflect that. Mine is currently off and in the drawer of my desk. I'll turn it on again when I need 2FA, some service provider's app, or when I'm likely to be out of the house for an extended period. I'll turn it off again when I don't need it.
Reminds me of Nokia/Symbian. To install a `.sis(x)` with any useful capabilities (permissions in Android) one needed to sign it with Nokia's keys; which they normally couldn't, at least with non-business email addresses. Until someone found a way to hack the roms and it became a Tom&Jerry struggle between hackers & Nokia who wanted to suffocate them by patching those loopholes.
Then came Android. The freedom to sideload any `.apk` on any device was magical. And now we've come full circle.
Except that Symbian wasn't source-available, so there was a bigger hope for a successful rebelion.
It will be a long tough uphill battle, but digital freedom is possible.
Purism is for example providing the Librem 5 phone with PureOS. Closing the app gap is big challenge, but I use the Librem 5 as my daily phone. Yes, I may have some inconvenience, but I have freedom, and the software is getting better and better.
I contacted the European Commission DMA team on this gross abuse of power (Google just followed Apple in this regard, who reacted to the DMA by coming out with this notarization of developers), here is they flacky answer:
"Dear citizen,
Thank you for contacting us and sharing your concerns regarding the impact of Google’s plans to introduce a developer verification process on Android. We appreciate that you have chosen to contact us, as we welcome feedback from interested parties.
As you may be aware, the Digital Markets Act (‘DMA’) obliges gatekeepers like Google to effectively allow the distribution of apps on their operating system through third party app stores or the web. At the same time, the DMA also permits Google to introduce strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that third-party software apps or app stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system or to enable end users to effectively protect security.
We have taken note of your concerns and, while we cannot comment on ongoing dialogue with gatekeepers, these considerations will form part of our assessment going forward.
Kind regards,
The DMA Team"
The DMA is in fact cementing their duopoly power, the opposite of the objective of the law.
F-Droid is great. It's a stark and sad outlook that the only path forward suggested by F-droid is to contact your representative. Effectively, this means there's nothing we can do. Expecting our representatives to go to war with Google on this somehow doesn't seem too plausible. I think it's more likely there will always be a way to sideload apps, or if not, maybe the degoogled OS alternatives will find their moment to shine.
The "vote with your feet" argument was always specious in a duopoly. If consumer rights depend on the whims of giant corporations like Google and Apple, then consumers never had rights. "Just switch to Android if you don't like iOS lockdown" is now becoming a joke.
Consumers desperately need specific legal rights to do what we want with the electronic devices that we've purchased, rights that cannot be overridden by the decisions of any vendor.
Apologists have always said, "Apple has a right to do what it wants with its platform." Well guess what, by that principle, so does Google. Don't worry, though, because you have a "choice" between two collaborating duopolists.
F-Droid apps have enabled me to more-or-less DeGoogle my tablet and populate the device with some truly exceptional software, much of which just isn't available on Google's Play Store. I've also made sure to pay/donate where possible: we can't afford to lose this resource!
The EU age verification system for the web is currently planned to rely on the Android/iOS anti-tampering device controls: https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-doc-technic.... None of the plans to achieve China's level of internal control over communication can work without banning all user-administrated devices from the web, so I guess that's what you can expect next.
Of course it will, given how many every day help Google take over the Web, using features that are effectively ChromeOS Platform, complaining when Firefox and Safari refuse to adopt such features (they are holding Web back!), and shipping Electron crap.
I'll never reward Apple with another dime. They started and normalized this. Plus whatever rights Apple takes away next, Android will likely continue to lag behind in implementing for years.
Samsung [^1] has an autoblocker. I have no idea what it does exactly. I always need to turn it off while installing or updating anything from F-droid. Then I enable it again in the naive hope it might prevent dome drive-by attack.
[^1]: My employer paid for it. I never would pay for the crapware full of uninstallable stuff I don't want. Is Pure Android still a thing if you don't want to pay The Evil Company?
In my interpretation, this clause is for when someone ships a user product that contains GPLv3 software. That means it would apply to the phone vendor if the phone contained GPLv3 (or anything using LGPLv3) software.
But if you're just a developer who ship software GPLv3 software for Android, you are good because any developer that want to modify your software on their phone can, as long as they register to Google to get these keys. It should therefore be respecting the licenses.
One could argue whether Phones with the Google android were ever really open.
As for the really really open phone with alternative OS or Linux based OS, they will continue to exist as before.
Perhaps even become more popular after this?
Developing for Android and iOS is already a huge pain, browser based experiences can be even better than native apps in some cases. I will also not invest any more time in developing/following these closed platforms, and try to push web based solutions as much as reasonably possible.
My impression is that the order of causality is the opposite. Google and similar companies are lobbying heavily for these industry codes so that app developers have no choice but to introduce the restrictions which only allow you to operate via them.
I agree with the first point! On the second- how do you access apps tied to services like banking, utilities, transport, etc?
This is one of the main things keeping me tied to the Google ecosystem, a lot of services require me to have an app that's only available on the play store.
It reminds me of the Calvin and Hobbes strip where the dad jokes that throwing out junk mail makes him a terrorist. Running your own software on your own device? That's hacker talk.
What's wrong about the current situation? Why imperfect?
I have had Android phones starting from G1, and never had any problems with them, that I could install any APK that I wished on my own hardware. There's nothing imperfect for me, as a user. What's "imperfect" is that there are apps like ReVanced and PipePipe that deprive Google of the advertising revenue. But that's imperfect for Google, and perfect for the user. Just charge me 30 bucks for Android OS instead.
wait i live in singapore. this sucks, i loved using fdroid and didnt want to take the risk of rooting + flashing a custom rom. i felt the impact of the 'security' the moment i switched from my oneplus nord ce to 13r, i lost access to most android/data folders even with shizuku
this is just so annoying in general for me, i might have to go the custom rom route then
I think this is the right take. Other commenters are mourning the death of general-purpose computing, but general-purpose computing is very much alive and kicking in laptops, desktops, and servers. It's just smartphones and tablets that are being turned into limited-use appliances. The overwhelming majority of users just want a smartphone or tablet that's a limited-use appliance, and those of us on HN who want general-purpose computers are a tiny minority, and our insistence that we be allowed to make our own decisions is drowned out by those who need their hands held in this dangerous world.
My smartphone is used for interacting with systems that I expect to surveil me anyway - my bank, my navigation app, and so on. Serious work is done using serious machines.
1. You cannot expect a public body to take a legal conclusion with significant financial impact on the basis of a single citizen report or in reply to that report. This takes analysis, technical and legal work, etc. So your expectation that they respond to your message eith something akin to "of course, you provide evidence of a breach. I, the single case officer responding, confirm the facts are true. Thanks for telling us we will now fine them 5 billion" is a bit unreasonable.
2. I don't see how even inadequate application and a non-committal response leads to the conclusion that this is intended to (or even just allows) to entrench the Android/IOS duopoly.
That's not actually what the reply said, it was extremely noncommittal as you'd expect. If you contacted one of your MEPs they might have a stronger opinion they'd want to promote, but the DMA team are just not going to render judgement based on one email.
But my initial reading of F-Droid's explanation was "hang on, Google are going to get slammed for the same thing Apple got slammed for" so I hope they do come to the same conclusion and do it quickly, before F-Droid is entirely dead.
Maybe that's Google's intention - that the time lag on enforcement is going to be long enough that they achieve half the goal anyway.
The SimpleMobileTools fiasco and the way FDroid stayed resilient against it is the perfect example case of how their 'security' argument behind the side loading ban and developer registration mandate is hollow, misleading and harmful.
Consider trying Ubuntu Touch, very active community and fun if you're interested to be a developer.
Jumping from a shark to another is maybe not the solution we should aim for.
I released an app on the Ubuntu Touch store: took a minute to fill in the form and then you get people giving you feedback/help if anything doesn't work (since you can link your source code too).
> 800$ for 720p screen and 3GBs of RAM
> Can't even use a bank app with it
I'm sorry, but this will never see adoption wide enough to be useful.
I can't imagine paying 800 and still having to carry a "backup" phone for payments, public transit and such.
Quite honestly, developing for Android and iOS is no longer worth it. I was planning a set of cross-platform native products using Flutter and other tools, but after a careful analysis came to the conclusion that it makes no sense. You have to distribute 5 different apps (Linux, macOS, Windows, iOS, Android) with 5 different packaging, signing, and distribution requirements and have to fight with all kinds of garbage, from Gatekeeper over expensive certificates for Windows to avoid being flagged by antivirus, to anti-competitive app store requirements by Apple and Google.
Web apps have become unavoidable. Native is beating a dead horse.
Do you think any single one remained who cares over their payment, stock options, office perks? They care about not getting laid off with the next wave.
Content explicitly invokes 'dignity of all members,' 'free speech and thought central to democratic societies,' and frames human rights principles as foundational to software freedom debate.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
The article states software acting against user interests is defended against through 'open source,' establishing a human-centered principle.
Text explicitly references 'core principles of free speech and thought that are central to the workings of democratic societies around the world.'
Inferences
The invocation of dignity, democracy, and fundamental freedoms aligns the digital freedom argument with UDHR preamble themes.
Framing open source as foundational to human dignity positions software architecture as a human rights issue.
Strong advocacy for privacy rights. Criticizes commercial apps as 'hotbeds of spyware' that 'mine their intimate information,' praising F-Droid's validation that apps 'work for the user's interests' not distributors'. Explicitly contrasts data mining with user seeking to avoid 'intimate details into an advertisement network.'
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Opening states commercial app stores are 'hotbeds of spyware and scams, blatantly promoting apps that prey on their users through attempts to monetize their attention and mine their intimate information.'
Article explicitly states F-Droid has 'No user accounts, by design' and asks rhetorically 'Or a scheduling assistant that doesn't siphon your intimate details into an advertisement network?'
Text emphasizes F-Droid's transparency: apps are 'inspecting [them] to ensure that it is completely open source and contains no undocumented anti-features such as advertisements or trackers.'
Inferences
The strong criticism of commercial data mining and F-Droid's design rejection of user tracking demonstrate clear, sustained advocacy for privacy as a fundamental right.
Framing privacy protection as core distinguishing value positions data protection as central to human dignity in digital context.
Central theme of entire post. Advocates that 'software should remain a commons, accessible and free from unnecessary corporate gatekeeping.' Emphasizes transparency as foundation of trust: code auditable, build logs public, reproducible builds ensure authenticity. Contrasts F-Droid's transparency model with closed corporate platforms.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Article concludes: 'software should remain a commons, accessible and free from unnecessary corporate gatekeeping.'
Text states F-Droid provides transparency: 'the code can be audited by anyone, the build process and logs are public, and reproducible builds ensure that what is published matches the source code exactly.'
Article describes open source as 'the best disinfectant against corruption' and 'best defense against software acting against the interests of the user.'
Inferences
The sustained emphasis on information transparency and public accountability positions open source as an information freedom mechanism.
Framing software-as-commons advocates for collective ownership of knowledge and code as a public good.
Explicitly invokes freedom of thought and conscience as 'core principles of free speech and thought that are central to the workings of democratic societies.' Frames software creation and distribution as expression of conscience equivalent to art and literature.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article states: 'It is an offense to the core principles of free speech and thought that are central to the workings of democratic societies around the world.'
Text draws analogy: 'Forcing software creators into a centralized registration scheme...is as egregious as forcing writers and artists to register with a central authority.'
Inferences
Direct invocation of free speech and thought principles aligns software freedom argument with foundational democratic conscience rights.
The analogy to writers and artists frames software development as a form of personal expression and conscience equivalent to traditional creative works.
Advocates universal principle: 'If you own a computer, you should have the right to run whatever programs you want on it,' applying equal rights across device types.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article asserts 'If you own a computer, you should have the right to run whatever programs you want on it' as universal principle.
Text extends this principle equally to mobile devices: 'This is just as true with the apps on your Android/iPhone mobile device.'
Inferences
The assertion of equivalence across device types appeals to underlying equality principle.
Equal application of rights to different technology platforms reinforces universal dignity concept.
Calls for regulatory intervention and democratic participation: 'Write to your Member of Parliament, Congressperson or other representative, sign petitions, and contact the European Commission's Digital Markets Act (DMA) team.' Advocates for citizen agency in defending digital rights.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article explicitly calls: 'Write to your Member of Parliament, Congressperson or other representative, sign petitions in defense of sideloading and software freedom, and contact the European Commission's Digital Markets Act (DMA) team.'
Text names 'Regulatory and competition authorities' as key actors who 'should look carefully at Google's proposed activities.'
Inferences
The specific call for political engagement demonstrates belief in democratic participation as a remedy for rights threats.
The reference to European regulatory bodies suggests recognition of international governance frameworks as protectors of digital rights.
Advocates for scientific transparency and cultural progress through open-source model. Emphasizes 'reproducible builds' and 'build process and logs are public' as enabling scientific verification. Positions transparency as cultural good enabling collective knowledge.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article emphasizes 'reproducible builds ensure that what is published matches the source code exactly' and 'the build process and logs are public.'
Text frames open source as 'the best disinfectant against corruption,' using transparency language.
Inferences
The emphasis on reproducibility and public processes aligns with scientific integrity and accountability principles.
Framing open source as enabling transparent verification positions it as a cultural good supporting collective knowledge and progress.
Criticizes forced personal ID registration requirement: 'uploading of personally identifying documents, including government ID' as barrier to recognition and autonomy.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article explicitly objects to 'uploading of personally identifying documents, including government ID, by the authors of the software' as part of proposed requirement.
Text emphasizes F-Droid operates with 'No user accounts, by design,' preserving anonymity.
Inferences
The critique of forced government ID disclosure signals concern about privacy and unwanted personal data collection.
Framing this requirement as a barrier to developer participation implies threat to personal autonomy in professional context.
Advocates for developers' right to work and distribute their creations without forced compliance with centralized registration. Compares to forced registration of writers and artists, framing software development as legitimate work deserving autonomy.
FW Ratio: 33%
Observable Facts
Article states: 'Forcing software creators into a centralized registration scheme in order to publish and distribute their works is as egregious as forcing writers and artists to register with a central authority.'
Inferences
The analogy frames software development as creative work equivalent to writing and art, deserving protection for professional autonomy.
The critique of forced registration implies developers have a right to choose distribution channels and maintain control over their work.
Advocates for social and international order protecting digital rights. Calls for 'Regulatory and competition authorities' and specifically 'European Commission's Digital Markets Act (DMA)' to ensure 'policies designed to improve security are not abused to consolidate monopoly control.'
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article states 'Regulatory and competition authorities should look carefully at Google's proposed activities, and ensure that policies designed to improve security are not abused to consolidate monopoly control.'
Text specifically names 'contact the European Commission's Digital Markets Act (DMA) team' as regulatory mechanism.
Inferences
Reference to regulatory and competition frameworks indicates belief in supranational governance mechanisms as protectors of digital rights.
The invocation of DMA suggests awareness of international standards approaches to protecting market competition and user freedom.
Argues Google's policy would destroy previously held rights. Uses language of threat: 'decree will end the F-Droid project,' 'the world will be deprived,' 'F-Droid users will be left adrift.' Advocates for protection of rights already established.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article states: 'If it were to be put into effect, the developer registration decree will end the F-Droid project and other free/open-source app distribution sources as we know them today.'
Text emphasizes loss: 'the world will be deprived of the safety and security of the catalog of thousands of apps that can be trusted and verified.'
Inferences
The language of threat to existing freedoms frames the issue in terms of protecting previously established rights rather than claiming new ones.
The use of 'decree,' 'unilaterally,' and 'end' emphasizes the destructive and unilateral nature of the action being opposed.
Discusses developer property rights in application identifiers, arguing F-Droid 'cannot...take over the application identifiers' as that would 'effectively seize exclusive distribution rights.'
FW Ratio: 33%
Observable Facts
Article states 'we cannot take over the application identifiers for the open-source apps we distribute, as that would effectively seize exclusive distribution rights to those applications.'
Inferences
The framing of application identifiers as a form of property that cannot be seized implies recognition of developer intellectual property claims.
The concern about 'seizing' rights suggests the author views distribution identifiers as belonging to developers.
Advocates implicitly for social and economic rights through framing 'software should remain a commons,' positioning open-source ecosystem as collective good.
FW Ratio: 33%
Observable Facts
Article frames software as 'commons, accessible and free from unnecessary corporate gatekeeping.'
Inferences
Framing software-as-commons positions information access as a collective social right rather than individual property.
The critique of 'corporate gatekeeping' implies that social goods should be governed differently from private assets.
Advocates for collective responsibility to preserve open ecosystems. Frames individual action as contributing to commons: 'By making your voice heard, you help defend not only F-Droid, but the principle that software should remain a commons.'
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article states: 'By making your voice heard, you help defend not only F-Droid, but the principle that software should remain a commons.'
Text calls for collective action across multiple constituencies: users, developers, parliamentarians, and regulators.
Inferences
The framing of individual action as contributing to collective good demonstrates belief in shared responsibility for preserving digital commons.
The appeal for diverse stakeholder participation suggests the author views open ecosystems as a community duty rather than individual right only.
'hotbeds of spyware and scams,' 'shadowy data broker,' 'dark patterns,' 'egregious,' 'tighten control' — emotionally charged terms designed to trigger concern
appeal to fear
'F-Droid is under threat,' 'the world will be deprived,' 'users will be left adrift' — repeated threat narratives
flag waving
Repeated invocation of 'free speech,' 'democratic societies,' 'software freedom,' 'digital freedom' as aspirational values
causal oversimplification
'We believe it is about consolidating power and tightening control' — attributes singular motive to complex policy without evidence