Silent Installation without Root using Shizuku

[rollingmoai]

For example, SkyDroid allows for this (could use it with root as well):

[pusherplayer]

You read my mind I was about to request the same.
Honestly it would be a good addition for people who
don't have root access to use adb through shizuku to install apps

[1Michael23]

You read my mind I was about to request the same. Honestly it would be a good addition for people who don't have root access to use adb through shizuku to install apps

More than just people without root, Shizuku is great with root too as its a more secure method of handing out permissions to apps.

[turtlegarden]

This would be really nice. I have not figured out how to get silent install working on Droidify (yet) but SkyDroid works.

[severtheskyline]

Any updates of this?

[k3b]

If i understood correctly: Neo-Store is gpl (see https://github.com/NeoApplications/Neo-Store/blob/master/COPYING ).

Is Shizuku-License compatible with gpl?

From https://github.com/RikkaApps/Shizuku#License :

For the project as a whole, it is not free. You are FORBIDDEN to distribute the apk compiled by you (including modified, e.g.,
rename app name "Shizuku" to something else) to any store (IBNLT Google Play Store, F-Droid, Amazon Appstore etc.).

[Small-Ku]

The Shizuku API is MIT.
https://github.com/RikkaApps/Shizuku-API

[prirai]

I also recommend that this be added. Many apps from F-droid also use this, like there is Tachiyomi, Insular, Darq, Hail, Termux and these apps benefit greatly by enabling Shizuku api.
[UPDATE]

MuntashirAkon/AppManager#67

https://github.com/RikkaApps/Shizuku#exceptions

So, Shizuku is somewhat non-free so we can wait for a fully FOSS app to enable this feature. I guess this should clear why the devs aren't adding Shizuku support therefore this thread might be close or replaced with another issue title for a similar app.

[rollingmoai]

The closest thing that is Neo-Store can do right now are silent updates in Android 12 without needing root (#20)

[daemonspudguy]

@prirai that doesn't make any sense, though. The API is 100% FOSS and licensed under the MIT/Expat License.

[scientiac]

Shizuku has been a must have since I stopped rooting my phone. So there's no harm in adding the feature. Droidify has it but neo having many features than that of droidify doesn't have it. It doesn't make sense. I want to switch to neo so bad but this thing alone is keeping me with droidify.

[Offerel]

At least for me, none of the installer options from Droidify works. I have tested all of them for a while, but absolute no update of an app, was updated automatically.

Can you please tell me what I should choose (in Droidify), to get f-droid app updates installed, without that I have manually accept the update?

[prirai]

@scientiac , @Offerel I use neo-store and have noticed that it suits silent updates. Not sure if it works on Android below 12. Silent updates doesn't work almost half the time though.

[scientiac]

@prirai I have android 13 and I don't see any "silent" installs

[rollingmoai]

This was already implemented in Droid-ify a long time ago (Droid-ify/client#14). Updates on this?

[machiav3lli]

Won't be added as long as Shizuku isn't free.

[rollingmoai]

It's not entirely free, but how does that have to do with anything? Provide the user with the option at least.

[raniesantos]

I've been indecisive about which of the two I should use since they started as a single project and look very identical.
I guess this makes the decision easier.

Droid-ify it is then.

[Xynonners]

isn't shizuku licensed under apache 2.0 with that single forbidden? I wouldn't see how that would make the app nonfree.

[machiav3lli]

@Xynonners not really, it's a custom license having restrictions. The one restriction blocking this is the one realted to forbiding public builds and distribution of the app, with that it's not free in any sense, it's just code available.

[CuteistFox]

@IzzySoft is shizuku flosss (tag @machiav3lli)

[IzzySoft]

@meow-purr in a way. The license says so, but the TOS disagrees a little. When I last checked there was something with "thou shalt not distribute our binaries" or so.

For the project as a whole, it is not free. You are FORBIDDEN to distribute the apk compiled by you (including modified, e.g., rename app name "Shizuku" to something else) to any store (IBNLT Google Play Store, F-Droid, Amazon Appstore etc.).

Now tell me how "it is not free" matches the license specified.

   2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
      this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
      worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
      copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
      publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the
      Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.

To highlight: the right to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form is explicitly granted by Apache-2.0. Forbidding the distribution of self-compiled/modified APKs (aka "Derivative Works") contradicts that. Which is why it's not entirely clear – as either the license voids the TOS, or the TOS the license. The TOS is clearly violating freedom-2 (The freedom to redistribute copies; counting starts with freedom-0 here).

Before you ask: I distribute their APK, and to make sure explicitly asked their permission. But it's quite dark gray area. In dubio pro reo (IANAL) I decided this way; F-Droid would definitely decide the other way as rules are stricter there.

[IzzySoft]

PS in your issue there, I've linked the answer. The reason specified was what drove my decision. I fully understand the reasoning, there are far too many copycats making money of other people's work. Just recently we succeeded in having Google deleting a developer account that had some 20 FOSS apps, which their resp. developers explicitly did not put on Play, "enriched" by ads and trackers in their list.

[CuteistFox]

@meow-purr in a way. The license says so, but the TOS disagrees a little. When I last checked there was something with "thou shalt not distribute our binaries" or so.

For the project as a whole, it is not free. You are FORBIDDEN to distribute the apk compiled by you (including modified, e.g., rename app name "Shizuku" to something else) to any store (IBNLT Google Play Store, F-Droid, Amazon Appstore etc.).

Now tell me how "it is not free" matches the license specified.

   2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
      this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
      worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
      copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
      publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the
      Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.

To highlight: the right to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form is explicitly granted by Apache-2.0. Forbidding the distribution of self-compiled/modified APKs (aka "Derivative Works") contradicts that. Which is why it's not entirely clear – as either the license voids the TOS, or the TOS the license. The TOS is clearly violating freedom-2 (The freedom to redistribute copies; counting starts with freedom-0 here).

Before you ask: I distribute their APK, and to make sure explicitly asked their permission. But it's quite dark gray area. In dubio pro reo (IANAL) I decided this way; F-Droid would definitely decide the other way as rules are stricter there.

Any lawer here? to clear this confusion

[machiav3lli]

It doesn't need a lawer to clear the situation, it's clear that the dev(s) has added an exception of the license aka. customized it, blocking the aforementioned freedom-2. I don't see a need to discuss any further, concerning who have rights and what not.. I respect their wish (and understand the concern partialy - although it's always questionable if this added exception would stop the misuse of the code) and decide for this project to avoid supporting of this API.

[IzzySoft]

Funny thing is: I've just updated my local clone of fdroiddata from upstream master, and noticed this line:

create mode 100644 srclibs/shizuku.yml

And now I'm puzzled.

RepoType: git
Repo: https://github.com/RikkaApps/Shizuku

Prepare: git -c 'url.https://u:p@github.com/.insteadOf=git@github.com:' submodule update --init

Seems like the API is deemed FOSS, as the TOS is just affecting the APK? 🤔

[CuteistFox]

@meow-purr in a way. The license says so, but the TOS disagrees a little. When I last checked there was something with "thou shalt not distribute our binaries" or so.

For the project as a whole, it is not free. You are FORBIDDEN to distribute the apk compiled by you (including modified, e.g., rename app name "Shizuku" to something else) to any store (IBNLT Google Play Store, F-Droid, Amazon Appstore etc.).

Now tell me how "it is not free" matches the license specified.

   2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
      this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
      worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
      copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
      publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the
      Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.

To highlight: the right to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form is explicitly granted by Apache-2.0. Forbidding the distribution of self-compiled/modified APKs (aka "Derivative Works") contradicts that. Which is why it's not entirely clear – as either the license voids the TOS, or the TOS the license. The TOS is clearly violating freedom-2 (The freedom to redistribute copies; counting starts with freedom-0 here).

Before you ask: I distribute their APK, and to make sure explicitly asked their permission. But it's quite dark gray area. In dubio pro reo (IANAL) I decided this way; F-Droid would definitely decide the other way as rules are stricter there.
@IzzySoft

@IzzySoft could i modify under apche and have that under apche

[soredake]

Example pr for aurora store https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS/AuroraStore/-/merge_requests/206/diffs

[CuteistFox]

as @vvb2060 said

We authorize everyone to use shizuku code (Java and Kotlin) because we believe it is enough for developers. If someone wants to use the package name, icon and app name of shizuku (Gradle, PNG and XML), then this is a counterfeit website and we cannot be responsible for its content.

so its more of trademark than copright

[CuteistFox]

as discused here

'd like to point out that the "Forbidden" has no meaning at all for any code that says it's Apache 2.0 licensed. If a file says it's Apache 2.0 licensed, it's Apache 2.0 licensed, including the right to recompile and distribute. This is the case irrespective of the README saying the project as a whole doesn't actually comply with the Apache 2.0 License. If someone were to fork the entire master branch, then delete the README file and any file that isn't licensed by the Apache 2.0 License, they'd end up with a resulting branch that's entirely made of Apache 2.0 Licensed files, which thus explicitly allows redistribution of recompiled binaries.

the code is under apache, the icon and readme is not

[PeterKW]

Does something like this be used? https://github.com/depau/fdroid_shizuku_privileged_extension
The extension seems to work with droidify https://github.com/Droid-ify/client

[machiav3lli]

As already said multiple times, it's about Shizuku's license and not some technical aspects, an implementation isn't an issue at all!

[IzzySoft]

@machiav3lli as stated above, doesn't the license issue only affect the Shizuku app itself but not the library? Of course if your argument is the app would still be needed to make this useful (is that so?), the point is clear.

[PeterKW]

Very sorry, I've been trying to learn about licenses but getting a bit confused. Are you saying the code is copy left but the documentation isn't?

Droidify uses Shizuku and looks like it has the same license although presumably there's something im missing?
https://github.com/Droid-ify/client/blob/main/LICENSE

Is it a problem for someone to fork under the same license Neo Store and do what Droidify have done calling the Shizuku protocols?

Sorry, if my confusion is complicated to answer. I've tried looking up about the licensing but got confused with all the information looping round and round

[IzzySoft]

Are you saying the code is copy left but the documentation isn't?

You must differentiate between the Shizuku APP (which to my understanding handles the actions) and the Shizuku LIBRARY. The latter is what is implemented in apps to communicate with the "core" in the Shizuku app. And that library is not disputed. Just the Shizuku app itself is.

So to my knowledge, the library is libre, but it needs to communicate with the Shizuku app. If the Shizuku app is not installed on the same device, the library would have no effect. But 1) IANAL and 2) I didn't really deeply dig into it.

[machiav3lli]

@PeterKW it's not a license-issue in the conventional sense of such, it's the choice to not "nudge" the users into using a non-libre framework. Surely there may be individuals that may have another stance and decide to fork NS, but that's the freedom a libre project provides.

@IzzySoft exactly, it's the dependence on Shizuku app. One may argue: "but it'd be just optional", I'd say: options create nudges and discourses.

[CuteistFox]

but if you delete he readme and iconit is now libre(the app)

[mattdale77]

I would like to add my voice to them request for this. I see the discussion around it but it is supported from 4.2.4 in Aurora Store and this is on F-Droid and we know that F-Droid has very strict requirements so in my opinion there should be no issue in implementing the library within Neo Store

[machiav3lli]

@mattdale77 I think you misunderstood the blocker. It's not whether this is an F-Droid blocker or not, it's about Shizuku being not free (freedoms 2 & 3 are infringed).

[CuteistFox]

to avoid the nudge what about "instalation via sui" this has compatibilty with shizku api but is using magisk and is free software(the resanson to use sui is so there arent 10 su shels ruuning at once)

[machiav3lli]

@meow-purr I think you misunderstood what SUI is. SUI requires Magisk/Zygisk, which means the user already have su/root, which NS already supports as an installer.

[CuteistFox]

yes but this is a silly way to avoid the nudge to get propriatary sofotware(shizku) while still basicly adding support

[CuteistFox]

also its designd so each app dosent open a su shell waisting cores

[PeterKW]

Droidify can use Shizuku for FDroid installer
https://f-droid.org/packages/com.looker.droidify
https://www.f-droid.org/packages/org.fdroid.fdroid.privileged/

#102 (comment)

[CyanChanges]

You're facing to its API, not the implementation.
You can implement an non-free implementation. And every free-software use this API must remove it? Because of your call an implementation may not free enough?

And you're not using pure-AOSP, right?
You are using OS from manufacturer of your phone. And they may not open source at all, and you must call Android API in your Android App, which must call theirs code somehow.

[CompeyDev]

At least, would it be possible to provide a setting to select the installer app? Then, in that case one could use a package installer like pi in order to use shizuku or root as an installation method.

I think this is probably the way to go forward, avoiding any dependence on non-free software, while allowing the user to opt in to using alternate installation methods.

[machiav3lli]

@CompeyDev Root is supported since ever and Muntashir's App Manager installer is supported on 1.0.0 (still in beta)

[CompeyDev]

The whole point of shizuku is to avoid root access, so I don't think that's what people want.

Never heard of the latter will give the build a test run and lyk.

[CompeyDev]

Any CI builds I can get my hands on? Or would I need to manually compile it?

[machiav3lli]

Test builds are mainly available on the community channels on Telegram and Matrix.

On the shizuku thingy: I don't think that repeating the obvious/said helps anyone further...

[ky-bd]

You're facing to its API, not the implementation. You can implement an non-free implementation. And every free-software use this API must remove it? Because of your call an implementation may not free enough?

And you're not using pure-AOSP, right? You are using OS from manufacturer of your phone. And they may not open source at all, and you must call Android API in your Android App, which must call theirs code somehow.

Even if our free-developer is using pure-AOSP, there are binary vendor firmwares being non-free. Not to mention the AArch64 ISA and SoCs from Quaxxmm, Mexxxxek, Saxxxng, Apxxe, etc. Is GitHub ever free? It must be the great sacrifice for our free-developer to stand on this free-world and live on the free-energy. F.

[machiav3lli]

Even if our free-developer is using pure-AOSP, there are binary vendor firmwares being non-free. Not to mention the AArch64 ISA and SoCs from Quaxxmm, Mexxxxek, Saxxxng, Apxxe, etc. Is GitHub ever free? It must be the great sacrifice for our free-developer to stand on this free-world and live on the free-energy. F.

Maybe your poetic self can find sometime to fork (and maintain) the project and add the support it wishes.