I thought the main point was to provide a centralised repository, not to have a 'stamp of approval' and a guarantee of being 'malware free'.
For the life of me I can't see how google could begin to put a dent in evaluating each and every application at that level.
Do they refuse applications according to some publicised rule set ?
Each and every one of the closed source downloads that has ever been done from download.com could turn out to be malware tomorrow morning, I find it hard to believe we should hold download.com as the place where we 'got it' responsible for stuff like that.
In the end, you should trust the creator of the software, emphatically not the place where you downloaded the code. Whether it's a big site maintained by a big name or a smaller one, if it isn't open source you basically can't trust it.
For the life of me I can't see how google could begin to put a dent in evaluating each and every application at that level.
Do they refuse applications according to some publicised rule set ?
Each and every one of the closed source downloads that has ever been done from download.com could turn out to be malware tomorrow morning, I find it hard to believe we should hold download.com as the place where we 'got it' responsible for stuff like that.
In the end, you should trust the creator of the software, emphatically not the place where you downloaded the code. Whether it's a big site maintained by a big name or a smaller one, if it isn't open source you basically can't trust it.