• 4 Posts
  • 25 Comments
Joined 1 month ago
cake
Cake day: September 27th, 2026

help-circle



  • It sounds like you’re in a gatekeeper role

    Not sure I like the sound of that.

    But I was thinking of scrutinizing a few more packages in this way, time permitting. Maybe it will inspire other people to do the same.

    It also means the security is “trust me bro”. That’s far more disturbing to me than all the legal and transparency concerns put together.

    Well that’s why I’m asking for transparency. This oldest 3rd party appstore ran on “trust me bro” for almost 20 years… way back when it was big but the whole mobile ecosystem stuff wasn’t that developed yet. Then it was small for a long time, now it’s growing again because a) a new device came out that is selling surprisingly well and b) vibecoding is here.

    And it was never big on opensource despite being Linux-based.

    Now, when I raise these issues, many of these people feel insulted. Or admit that it’s just one bad apple. Not realizing that that’s exactly why we need transparency. It’s the opposite of “I don’t mind Google knowing everything, I have nothing to hide”: “you demanding transparency means you suspect us all of being criminals”.

    It’s idiotic at best, and worthy of a Hamlet quote at worst: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”




  • Thanks.

    I have analysed the package to my best abilities - it contains lots of stuff that cannot possibly be 100% the authors creation, but they lie about using LLMs and anyhow AI stealing IP is not illegal (yet).

    The community is pretty much 50/50 about LLM usage, but I think more people care about transparency, Opensource and respecting licenses. I’m getting plenty of likes for raising this issue. Well, relatively. More than the people opposing me.

    I have also found that the software in question wants to install ~40 more packages from its creators personal website. This isn’t disclosed anywhere. And that is objectively shady af imo - but again, probably not actually illegal.









  • Answering myself wrt F-Droid:

    tl;dr: the situation appears very similar to what I describe in my OP.

    • They seem very focused on fighting Google’s recent shenanigans and getting funded, and FOSS of course.
    • I found no mention of AI whatsoever in their CoC
    • I found no mention of AI whatsoever in their list of anti-features, and this seems to be the biggest indicator to me.
    • Not in their Blog either (by title, going back one year) but my search engine gave me this article, which seems to have been removed since: Home much of F-Droid is LLM-generated.
    • There’s a forum post asking a similar question with some very predictable drama. Straight out the door some “contributor” ridicules OP’s reasonable question in that typical, passive-aggressive smiley emoji coder way. Just what I have experienced. Thankfully other “contributors” at least see the value in pondering these things. While the question is never fully answered, the thread contains some interesting links to how other FOSS projects position themselves.

    I found an important clue in the latter:

    the watered down "Open Source AI Definition” that Mufelli pushed through the OSI.

    https://opensource.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition

    Straight away I don’t agree with it:

    Why we need Open Source Artificial Intelligence

    I’m guessing this is to be seen as a quasi-official stance to AI that most F(L)OSS will adopt or at least base their own policies on…