Libreware

A systemd fork has set out as a fu*k you to age verification. Liberated systemd is a fork of mainline systemd started by Jeffrey Seathrún Sardina, a machine learning/AI researcher who apparently had enough of where things were heading. The project is straightforward about its purpose; strip out what it considers surveillance-enabling code, keep everything else intact, and stay in sync with upstream as it develops. https://itsfoss.com/news/systemd-fork-strips-out-age-verification/ @itsfoss_official #AgeVerification#SystemD

SystemD Root Access Exploit Found, Devuan Team Calls SystemD "Unicorn Sh*t" "Found yet another high severity #systemd bug in #Ubuntu: local root privilege escalation (CVE-2026-3888) https://cybersecurity88.com/news/ubuntu-cve-2026-3888-timing-flaw-in-systemd-cleanup-enables-root-privilege-escalation/ Let us wish all #Devuan users a wonderful day out with their family for a merry father's day, instead of showeling unicorn shit." https://xcancel.com/DevuanOrg/status/2034560405968712179 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yukEnElXUg Lennart Poettering #microsoft#Linux#stalking#surveillance#backdoor#trojan

#Systemd Adds #Age#Verification & #Reddit#Linux Censors Age Verification Posts Plus: Which Open Source Operating Systems plan to include Age Verification? The Lunduke Journal compiles a list. Does It Age Verify?: https://github.com/BryanLunduke/DoesItAgeVerify https://lunduke.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3erhbwqIAM Lennart Poettering #microsoft#stalking#surveillance#backdoor#trojan

#Motorola's new partnership with #GrapheneOS https://motorolanews.com/motorola-three-new-b2b-solutions-at-mwc-2026/

❌#Fdroid security problems ⁨https://privsec.dev/posts/android/f-droid-security-issues⁩⁩ ⁨⁨https://xcancel.com/GrapheneOS/status/1883895255142932816 https://xcancel.com/GrapheneOS/status/1497272529223917575 ⁨⁨https://gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox/-/issues/7⁩⁩ ⁨⁨https://github.com/obfusk/fdroid-fakesigner-poc⁩⁩ ⁨⁨https://github.com/CatimaLoyalty/Android/issues/2608⁩⁩ ⁨⁨https://gitlab.com/fdroid/admin/-/issues/593⁩⁩ ⁨⁨https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/15490-f-droid-or-obtainium⁩⁩ ⁨⁨https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IzpVI4zaso0⁩⁩ ⁨⁨https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lAbgeJau3eE⁩⁩ ⁨⁨https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FFz57zNR_M0⁩⁩ ⁨⁨https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IAoCfrqx⁩⁩ #fd

#Droidify#Fdroid client Added SHA256 for signature verification (Long press on Sync icon to refresh index) https://github.com/Droid-ify/client/releases Many more android app stores at https://t.me/Libreware/1132 and #apk@LibreWare Tell us your favorite or any missing ones

Unilaterally consolidating and centralizing the power to approve software into the hands of a single unaccountable corporation is antithetical to the principles of free speech, an affront to free software, an insurmountable barrier to competition, and a threat to digital sovereignty everywhere. We implore Google to reverse course, end the developer verification program, and to begin working collaboratively with the broader community to advance security objectives without sacrificing the open principles upon which Android was built. The strength of the Android ecosystem has historically been its openness, and Google must work towards restoring its role as a faithful steward of that trust.

To what extent developer activity is tracked across the ecosystem What this means for developers working on privacy-preserving or politically sensitive applications Developers should have the right to create and distribute software without submitting to unnecessary surveillance or scrutiny. 4. Arbitrary Enforcement and Account Termination Risks Google’s existing app review processes have been criticized for opaque decision-making, inconsistent enforcement, and limited appeal mechanisms. Extending this system to all Android certified devices creates risks of: Arbitrary rejection or suspension without clear justification Automated systems making consequential decisions with insufficient human oversight Developers losing their ability to distribute apps across all channels due to a single un-reviewable corporate decision Political or competitive considerations influencing registration approvals Disproportionate impact on marginalized communities and controversial but legal applications A single point of failure controlled by one corporation is antithetical to a healthy, competitive software ecosystem. 5. Anticompetitive Implications This requirement allows Google to collect intelligence on all Android development activity, including: Which apps are being developed and by whom Alternative distribution strategies and business models Competitive threats to Google’s own services Market trends and user preferences outside of Google’s ecosystem This information asymmetry provides Google with significant competitive advantages, allows it to preempt, copy, and undermine competing products and services, and may open many questions about antitrust. 6. Regulatory concerns Regulatory authorities worldwide, including the European Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, and competition authorities in multiple jurisdictions, have increasingly scrutinized dominant platforms’ ability to preference their own services and restrict competition, demanding more openness and interoperability. We additionally note growing concerns around regulatory intervention increasing mass surveillance, impeding software freedom, open internet and device neutrality. We urge Google to find alternative ways to comply with regulatory obligations by promoting models that respect Android’s open nature without increasing gatekeeper control over the platform. Existing Measures Are Sufficient The Android platform already includes multiple security mechanisms that do not require central registration: Operating system-level security features, application sandboxing, and permission systems User warnings for applications that are directly installed (or “sideloaded”) Google Play Protect (which users can choose to enable or disable) Developer signing certificates that establish software provenance No evidence has been presented that these safeguards are insufficient to continue to protect Android users as they have for the entire seventeen years of Android’s existence. If Google’s concern is genuinely about security rather than control, it should invest in improving these existing mechanisms rather than creating new bottlenecks and centralizing control. Our Petition We call upon Google to: Immediately rescind the mandatory developer registration requirement for third-party distribution. Engage in transparent dialogue with civil society, developers, and regulators about Android security improvements that respect openness and competition. Commit to platform neutrality by ensuring that Android remains a genuinely open platform where Google’s role as platform provider does not conflict with its commercial interests. Over the years, Android has evolved into a critical piece of technological infrastructure that serves hundreds of governments, millions of businesses, and billions of citizens around the world.

https://keepandroidopen.org/open-letter/ Re: Mandatory Developer Registration for #Android App Distribution Date: February 24, 2026 To: Sundar Pichai, Chief Executive Officer, #Google To: Sergey Brin, Founder and Board Member, Google To: Larry Page, Founder and Board Member, Google To: Vijaya Kaza, General Manager for App & Ecosystem Trust, Google CC: Regulatory authorities, policymakers, and the Android developer community We, the undersigned organizations representing civil society, nonprofit institutions, and technology companies, write to express our strong opposition to Google’s announced policy requiring all Android app developers to register centrally with Google themselves in order to distribute applications outside of the Google Play Store, set to take effect worldwide in the coming months. While we do recognize the importance of platform security and user safety, the Android platform already includes multiple security mechanisms that do not require central registration. Forcibly injecting an alien security model that runs counter to Android’s historic open nature threatens innovation, competition, privacy, and user freedom. We urge Google to withdraw this policy and work with the open-source and security communities on less restrictive alternatives. Our Concerns 1. Gatekeeping Beyond Google’s Own Store Android has historically been characterized as an open platform where users and developers can operate independently of Google’s services. The proposed developer registration policy fundamentally alters that relationship by requiring developers who wish to distribute apps through alternative channels — their own websites, third-party app stores, enterprise distribution systems, or direct transfers — to first seek permission from Google through a mandatory verification process, which involves the agreement to Google’s terms and conditions, the payment of a fee, and the uploading of government-issued identification. This extends Google’s gatekeeping authority beyond its own marketplace into distribution channels where it has no legitimate operational role. Developers who choose not to use Google’s services should not be forced to register with, and submit to the judgement of, Google. Centralizing the registration of all applications worldwide also gives Google newfound powers to completely disable any app it wants to, for any reason, for the entire Android ecosystem. 2. Barriers to Entry and Innovation Mandatory registration creates friction and barriers to entry, particularly for: Individual developers and small teams with limited resources Open-source projects that rely on volunteer contributors Developers in regions with limited access to Google’s registration infrastructure Privacy-focused developers who avoid surveillance ecosystems Emergency response and humanitarian organizations requiring rapid deployment Activists working on internet freedom in countries that unjustly criminalize that work Developers in countries or regions where Google cannot allow them to sign up due to sanctions Researchers and academics developing experimental applications Internal enterprise and government applications never intended for broad public distribution Every additional bureaucratic hurdle reduces diversity in the software ecosystem and concentrates power in the hands of large established players who can more easily absorb such compliance costs. 3. Privacy and Surveillance Concerns Requiring registration with Google creates a comprehensive database of all Android developers, regardless of whether or not they use Google’s services. This raises serious questions about: What personal information developers must provide How this information will be stored, secured, and used Whether this data could be subject to government requests or legal processes

The Internet, Reinvented. In this video, I build a #Reticulum#RNode and prove that completely different radios — #LoRa and Wi-Fi — can communicate through a hardware-agnostic networking stack. Reticulum routes traffic above the radio layer, automatically bridging dissimilar frequencies, interfaces, and modulation types. I then run it over Wi-Fi HaLow Haven nodes to create a long-range, encrypted IP #mesh with no traditional infrastructure. Finally, I push it further by running #ATAK across the network, demonstrating a fully open-source, decentralized communication stack in action. Checkout https://rmap.world/ You can install rnode software on your esp32/nrf52 based meshtastic/meshcore hardware

Keep Android Open https://keepandroidopen.org https://f-droid.org/2026/02/20/twif.html During out talks with F-Droid users at FOSDEM26 we were baffled to learn most were relieved that #Google has canceled their plans to lock-down #Android. Why baffled? Because no such thing actually happened, the plans announced last August are still scheduled to take place. We see a battle of PR campaigns and whomever has the last post out remains in the media memory as the truth, and having journalists just copy/paste Google posts serves no one. But Google said… Said what? That there’s a magical “advanced flow”? Did you see it? Did anyone experience it? When is it scheduled to be released? Was it part of Android 16 QPR2 in December? Of 16 QPR3 Beta 2.1 last week? Of Android 17 Beta 1? No? That’s the issue… As time marches on people were left with the impression that everything was done, fixed, Google “wasn’t evil” after all, this time, yay! While we all have bad memories of “banners” as the dreaded ad delivery medium of the Internet, after FOSDEM we decided that we have to raise the issue back and have everyone, who cares about Android as an open platform, informed that we are running out of time until Google becomes the gate-keeper of all users devices. Hence, the website and starting today our clients, with the updates of F-Droid and F-Droid Basic, feature a banner that reminds everyone how little time we have and how to voice their concerns to whatever local authority is able to understand the dangers of this path Android is led to. We are not alone in our fight, IzzyOnDroid added a banner too, more #FDroid clients will add the warning banner soon and other app downloaders, like Obtainium, already have an in-app warning dialogue. #why

This is Probably the Best Video Downloader App (And it is Free and Open Source) | itsFOSS VidBee allows you to download videos from YouTube, Facebook, X, Instagram, etc. In fact, it supports over 1,800 websites. It is built on top of popular command line tools like yt-dlp and #ffmpeg. For the interface, it uses the Electron framework. I understand that some people dislike Electron framework as it runs a web browser underneath, but the 'advantage' of this framework is that you get the same interface in all the operating systems. At least, it's an advantage for the developers as they don't have to build the interface separately for #Linux, #Windows and #macOS. The source code for VidBee is available on its GitHub repository. #VidBee - Free Open Source Video Downloader https://vidbee.org/