Re: Gitlab's "C" rating is overrated; add netneutrality; evaluate Playstore & F-Droid (repo-criteria-discus: message 1 of 3)

[repo-criteria-discuss . grokchem]

* Aaron Wolf - address@hidden 
<repo-criteria-discus.grokchem.2b8d2ff730.wolftune#address@hidden> [2020-01-13 
09:51]:
> 
> Although marking Google Play with an F is a nice idea, the repo
> criteria generally are about places for free software source code to
> be hosted.
> 
> F-Droid is an interesting case. .. It could be good to evaluate.

If the project scope is strictly limited to source code hosting, then
Playstore and F-Droid are both equally out of scope.  Open source
projects use both Playstore and F-Droid to distribute their APKs,
neither of which host source code.

> Google Play does not offer that service in any form. From the FSF
> position, an Instant Pot app would not be accepted regardless of
> repository unless it is itself free software (which I presume it is
> not).

I think you misunderstood me.  I did not suggest an evaluation of the
Instant Pot app.  The Instant Pot app demonstrates a problem.

There is an alarming trend of end users being forced into Google
Playstore's repository to obtain software in binary form.  The market
has reached a point where banks, airlines, and makers of things like
kitchen appliances just assume everyone is willing and able to work
with Google.

Some banks have started requiring apps exclusively available in
Playstore for 2FA logins, and customers are actually being denied
access to online access unless they buy an Android, mobile phone
service, register with Google, and download the app from Playstore.
This is happening in countries where checks have been eliminated, so
those who refuse Google interaction must appear in person at their
bank to simply make a payment -- and that human assistence entails a
fee.

There are even taxpayer-funded government services that offer apps
that are exclusively in Google's Playstore.

As activists, we need tools to support our calls for action.  When we
petition, microblog, and write letters/reviews, need to point to an
ethical authority that says (in effect) "your product is unethical
because of this poor rating from a credible organization".  Does FSF
want to support that mission or not?  I suppose EFF would be better
suited for this, since it's more about privacy than free software.