Absolutely agreed, though there are some tweaks that could help. Rather than adding identity verification, simply making the existence of parental controls more prominent would go a long way towards alleviating concerns. The guardrails are there, people just need to know to use them.

The niche it fills is that it is a *lightweight* editor which works for rtf files and LF-only text files, which is available without installing anything extra. Starting up MS Word or LibreOffice Writer takes several times longer than firing up Wordpad, which makes the latter far more usable, especially for taking some quick notes or cutting and pasting some snippets.

Gmail allows it, but certainly doesn't make it easy to use. Though you can receive emails with a plus sign, if you want to respond from one you need to manually add it as an "alias". They really should make that automatic, and also let you edit the from address on-the-fly while composing an email.
I wonder if O365 will get this right?

DANE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... It does exactly that, and using it's Service Certificate Constraints feature would make revocation irrelevant, since you can specify exactly which certificate is valid.

This eliminates a pretty key feature in many contexts, namely that you need that specific device in order to authenticate. Otherwise, it seems hardly any better than just writing down an extra password in any normal text file on your phone.

As long as you are the author you can release the software under whatever license you want, as many times as you want. You can release it under GPL one day, BSD another, and FOOlicense the next. However, if you release it under GPL and receive patches/changes from someone else you can't just change the license on the enhanced software because you are no longer the sole author and a portion of the work not written by use has been forced to be under the GPL.
One workaround for this is to release the software under GPL and some other license from the start. Then you could claim that any patches that don't explicitly specify the GPL apply to the non-GPL'd version. Unfortunately it is extremely easy to come up with conflicting licenses. (What happens if you release software disallowing some part of the GPL, and then someone writes some GPL'd patched to it? The whole thing can't end up under GPL because you, the original author, specified a different license. The whole thing can't be under your license because the patches are GPL'd. So you end up not being able to use the enhancements.)