Mention services server code availability

For example Cryptee, see Cryptee | Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) (most of their reasons are true, but there’s a huge fraction of people that ask for server code so they can self host it).

Email providers, all of them, except ForwardEmail which is still not mentioned on the website yet.

Proton Drive and Tresorit (you don’t even mention that it is proprietary lol)

Proton Pass

Tuta Calendar

EDIT: not as criteria, but rather just mentioning it in their recommendation page. It would also be great to mention if their client is open source too, for the sake of being consistent.

2 Likes

I don’t necessarily think being able to self host is or should be a core requirement for PG to only then recommend the services/apps/products. I also do not think it’s necessary for all privacy apps to be able to make it possible or the option available to self host. It would be nice, sure. But I don’t think it should be a criteria that you weight heavily when evaluating a privacy product/service for recommendation.

Oh, I didn’t mean it as criteria, but rather just mentioning it in their recommendation page. Like they mention that Bitwarden server code is open source

Bitwarden’s server-side code is open source, so if you don’t want to use the Bitwarden cloud, you can easily host your own Bitwarden sync server.

But they don’t mention if the service’s server code is closed source; it is inconsistent.