License update
whispersystems.org
License update
1–10 of 71 posts
Re: License update
#2This is probably partially in response to some of the issues that were discussed here: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37
Re: License update
#3This is probably partially in response to some of the issues that were discussed here: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37
The GPL is an amazing license to gag developers while looking like a good person in the process. Not saying that is happening here but I have seen this before where questionable motivations where the driving force behind the license choice.
Re: License update
#4The license change is from GPLv3 to, uh, dual GPLv3/MPL-on-the-App-Store-or-something?
> Additional Permissions For Submission to Apple App Store: Provided that you are otherwise in compliance with the GPLv3 for each covered work you convey (including without limitation making the Corresponding Source available in compliance with Section 6 of the GPLv3), Open Whisper Systems also grants you the additional permission to convey through the Apple App Store non-source executable versions of the Program as incorporated into each applicable covered work as Executable Versions only under the Mozilla Public License version 2.0 (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/).
This seems less straightforward than what e.g. Mosh has. https://github.com/mobile-shell/mosh/blob/master/COPYING.iOS
Re: License update
#5Please be aware that you may not use this code to interact with OWS servers or in an app containing "signal" in the name [0].
[0] https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...
Re: License update
#6This is probably partially in response to some of the issues that were discussed here: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37
The GPL is an amazing license to gag developers while looking like a good person in the process. Not saying that is happening here but I have seen this before where questionable motivations where the driving force behind the license choice.
How does the GPL gag developers?
Re: License update
#7This is probably partially in response to some of the issues that were discussed here: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37
Moxie has always been a huge dick in this regard. I have no respect for Signal because of his mistreatment of the open source community.
Re: License update
#8The license change is from GPLv3 to, uh, dual GPLv3/MPL-on-the-App-Store-or-something? > Additional Permissions For Submission to Apple App Store: Provided that you are otherwise in compliance with the GPLv3 for each covered work you convey (including without limitation making the Corresponding Source available in compliance with Section 6 of the GPLv3), Open Whisper Systems also grants you the additional permission…
Tough crowd! That's what we used to do, but some extremely vocal people weren't satisfied, so we've done this to integrate our intentions into the license itself.
Re: License update
#9This is probably partially in response to some of the issues that were discussed here: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37
The GPL is an amazing license to gag developers while looking like a good person in the process. Not saying that is happening here but I have seen this before where questionable motivations where the driving force behind the license choice.
The GPL is an amazing license to prevent devs from profiting off others' work without also providing access to their own. Some might call that a "gag" because they're prevented from using the code without opening their own code as well, so it's closed to them for all practical purposes.
Is that the kind of gag that you're talking about, or did you mean something different?
Re: License update
#10This is probably partially in response to some of the issues that were discussed here: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37
Moxie has always been a huge dick in this regard. I have no respect for Signal because of his mistreatment of the open source community.
I think it seems clear that, in some circles, I have a number of unpopular opinions around federation, third party clients, app distribution, and what technologies are necessary or appropriate for large scale adoption of end to end encryption in today's world.
However, I'd be interested to hear more about why you think those unpopular opinions constitute "mistreatment." Am I guilty of something more than articulating my preferences and explaining our rationale for the decisions that we've made with our project?