This is going to become an interesting topic, because once one court can demand one thing, then every court will demand everything and relying on a remote managed OS will become untenable.
BUT managing your own OS / updated / etc, is not something most people care to do...
BUT managing your own OS / updated / etc, is not something most people care to do...
@Hyolobrika worst thing is google can technically do this
@Hyolobrika Ah yes, the concept of installing without some proprietary master having to always approve via a remote server is so odd that it's known as "sideloading".
Installing .apk's on Android is restricted mind you, as Android will refuse to install an .apk that's not signed and of course the typical apk signer is part of the proprietary SDK.
Installing .apk's on Android is restricted mind you, as Android will refuse to install an .apk that's not signed and of course the typical apk signer is part of the proprietary SDK.
@Suiseiseki @Hyolobrika Honestly I don't even blame jewgle.
I blame anyone retarded enough to run jewgle software.
I blame anyone retarded enough to run jewgle software.
>Installing .apk's on Android is restricted mind you, as Android will refuse to install an .apk that's not signed and of course the typical apk signer is part of the proprietary SDK.
What are you on about? How is it possible to "sideload" an app on FOSS forks of Android then?
What are you on about? How is it possible to "sideload" an app on FOSS forks of Android then?
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
@Hyolobrika >How is it possible to "sideload" an app
It doesn't matter what signature is on the .apk, what matters is that the .apk has a signature - otherwise both `adb install` and the installer GUI will refuse to install it.
It's a pain in the ass if you've just edited the metadata of a large (free software) .apk, so Android will allow storing it a partition marked as non-internal and even though the editing is done, you can't install the thing without also signing it and the default signer is only really bundled with proprietary software.
>FOSS forks of Android then?
As typical of "FOSS", every last one of those forks is chock full of proprietary software.
There is only one free version of Android; https://replicant.us/
It doesn't matter what signature is on the .apk, what matters is that the .apk has a signature - otherwise both `adb install` and the installer GUI will refuse to install it.
It's a pain in the ass if you've just edited the metadata of a large (free software) .apk, so Android will allow storing it a partition marked as non-internal and even though the editing is done, you can't install the thing without also signing it and the default signer is only really bundled with proprietary software.
>FOSS forks of Android then?
As typical of "FOSS", every last one of those forks is chock full of proprietary software.
There is only one free version of Android; https://replicant.us/
@Hyolobrika with certainty they can
@Hyolobrika probably safe. i hope they've removed the feature in the updater