Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

License update

whispersystems.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: License update

#61

Post by dlmetcalf »

moxie wrote: post #52
dlmetcalf wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this guy said it best: https://twitter.com/LauriLoveX/status/733137222539567106 i.e. Don't pretend to be "Open", altruistic, acting only in users security interests, selling benefits of open source, taking public interest donations, contributions, etc - and then prevent users from actually exercising simple neighborly freedoms. It's not like LibreSignal were doing anything particularly different to Desktop. L…

> i.e. Don't pretend to be "Open", altruistic, acting only in users security interests, selling benefits of open source, taking public interest donations, contributions, etc - and then prevent users from actually exercising simple neighborly freedoms. What in the world do you think our motivation is, then? We're not a business, it's not like we're doing all of this to capture revenue. We could all be making orders of…

I should clarify "The core issue with XMPP was that MSN Messenger, ICQ, etc. had deeper pockets.", is not precisely correct. The core issue is that they had a captive audience, continual popups and enormous barriers to entry against better technologies, allowing them to bully others out of the market. Another closed network.

Re: License update

#62

Post by dlmetcalf »

laughinghan wrote: post #60
dlmetcalf wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this guy said it best: https://twitter.com/LauriLoveX/status/733137222539567106 i.e. Don't pretend to be "Open", altruistic, acting only in users security interests, selling benefits of open source, taking public interest donations, contributions, etc - and then prevent users from actually exercising simple neighborly freedoms. It's not like LibreSignal were doing anything particularly different to Desktop. L…

I never equated anything with assault. I in fact presented using the term "assault" as being melodramatic and an overreaction, just like calling upon the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in this case is being melodramatic and an overreaction, and which Moxie has never done.

Ahh okaay, hitting someone (as you put it) is not assault now?

Let's cut to the chase. Were they legally free to continue, or not? No. Were they at risk of Aaron Swartz style incarceration if the did? Possibly, since that community also includes among it public interest defenders, political dissidents, journalists, whistleblowers, etc. and we've seen it all before. 50 years imprisonment and $1 million for Aaron Swartz (for a download), a hellish trial he couldn't afford against Goliaths, or plee bargain guilty to a minimum 6 months imprisonment and lifetime exclusion from any political life (which he'd planned) - DESPITE MIT & JSTOR declining to proceed

Was LibreSignal technically doing something wrong in the first place? Debatable. I haven't read that part of Signal's ToS, but it had been implied to be an open community (and certainly they immediately ceased and desisted on request). Was it ethically wrong? Hardly "because what they did was illegal" as you put it, a major crime and DEFINITELY not the equivalent of hitting someone.

The implication that OWS had directly threatened explicit legal action, was too strongly stated and I'm happy to withdraw that (I had another case in mind). Nevertheless, the end result hasn't been all that different for practical purposes.

Re: License update

#63

Post by dlmetcalf »

moxie wrote: post #56
dlmetcalf wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on @moxie, you didn't just say you'd prefer them not to, you expressly forbid it: "I'm not OK with LibreSignal using our servers, and I'm not OK with LibreSignal using the name \"Signal.\" You're free to use our source code for whatever you would like under the terms of the license, but you're not entitled to use our name or the service that we run." ( https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco…

> "I'm not OK with LibreSignal using our servers, and I'm not OK with LibreSignal using the name \"Signal.\" You're free to use our source code for whatever you would like under the terms of the license, but you're not entitled to use our name or the service that we run." Yes, that is what I said, after they explicitly asked "Let's ask @moxie0 if he is OK with LibreSignal using OWS servers." They asked, "are you OK w…

Read down thread my reply to laughinghan. The implication you personally, explicitly threatened direct legal action (whether implied or not) is possibly too strongly stated and I'm willing to rephrase that.

Suggesting it was meerly stated as a preference though, is not how a reasonable person would read "you're not entitled to use" and "we are not letting other people use our name in their products".

Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but the implication was clear and additionally the law follows the letter first. They "were threatened legal action with if they did" and even if you didn't actually intend to open that risk to them from yourself (as it was understood), they were still after that, at threat from others.

Re: License update

#64

Post by khedoros »

mhenr18 wrote: post #44
khedoros wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide a concrete example? I've seen three messages from you, and I still have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have an example of what you mean by "gag", in context of copyright? Do you have an example of how GPL or other licenses allows you to do something negative while maintaining a positive image?

Not OP, but I think I get what they're trying to say. The GPL requires others to follow its terms, because that's the only license of the code that's available to them. There is no clause of the GPL or any software license that I'm aware of that prevents you from doing whatever you want with your own code under different terms. Therefore, you can do something negative (sell software that uses changes to GPL'd code wi…

Those are some good points. Thank you for taking the time to answer!

Re: License update

#65

Post by moxie »

dlmetcalf wrote: post #58
moxie wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> i.e. Don't pretend to be "Open", altruistic, acting only in users security interests, selling benefits of open source, taking public interest donations, contributions, etc - and then prevent users from actually exercising simple neighborly freedoms. What in the world do you think our motivation is, then? We're not a business, it's not like we're doing all of this to capture revenue. We could all be making orders of…

> What in the world do you think our motivation is, then? I didn't have much doubt before. But once you double-down on technical strategies that entrench concentrated power of Google, Apple, etc and leave users without open source options, I have to start to wonder. > What code contributions? I guess we'll never know. I think more could have been done to bring them back in though. There was obviously significant inte…

> To anyone looking on, from the outside, it looks like OWS has taken a giant flip from their previous position:

This is not a "giant flip." We told Chris and everyone else both in person and publicly that they were free to use these libraries in their apps so long as they were otherwise complying with the GPL. You can even see my response to that exact comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11727870

Even though we had given explicit permission for Chris and others to use this code in their OSS apps, people like you -- who wish to see conspiracy in every choice we make -- continued to paint it as some kind of cold calculated move to prevent OSS apps from using our software (for what reason is beyond me). So we worked with a lawyer on this solution.

And now, what? This is part of the conspiracy too. Great.

Re: License update

#66

Post by dlmetcalf »

laughinghan wrote: post #42
jsingleton wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the code is GPL then shouldn't WhatsApp need to be open source? Or did they get a different license? The only thing listed at https://www.whatsapp.com/android/ are some changes to qcom as per the LGPL.

I think they're talking about the protocol like "keep around these keys and exchange this", but implemented with proprietary code that doesn't use any of Moxie's C implementation which is indeed GPL.

Nope, WhatsApp were given a different license. Unlike ChatSecure, who until this most recent change, were locked out from iOS.

Re: License update

#67

Post by dlmetcalf »

dlmetcalf wrote: post #66
laughinghan wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they're talking about the protocol like "keep around these keys and exchange this", but implemented with proprietary code that doesn't use any of Moxie's C implementation which is indeed GPL.

Nope, WhatsApp were given a different license. Unlike ChatSecure, who until this most recent change, were locked out from iOS.

It's good to see.

Re: License update

#68

Post by dlmetcalf »

tlrobinson wrote: post #12
richard_mcp wrote: post #2

This is probably partially in response to some of the issues that were discussed here: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37

It's a little depressing Moxie believes federated protocols can't compete with unfederated/proprietary ones. I don't like the idea of all future innovation taking place in the Slacks and WhatsApps rather than the IRCs and SMTPs. Are there any recent counter examples of successful federated protocols? It would be an interesting thought experiment to design a protocol that started with the basic features of IRC and inc…

Definitely check out https://matrix.org/ @tlrobinson!

It's all that and more. Not only does it have the basic features of XMPP+IRC (and others), but it also federates/bridges with those existing open standards! Plus supports WebRTC signalling and of course end-to-end 1:1 & group encryption (Olm/MegOlm).

There's a range of client, server and library options. Vector.IM (with web, iOS and Android clients) is a good place for many to start and you can try on an existing service. Then if you want, just fire up your own server and it'll federate with the rest.

If you only needed pure XMPP, Conversations.IM is superb too.

Re: License update

#69

Post by [deleted] »

tlrobinson wrote: post #12
richard_mcp wrote: post #2

This is probably partially in response to some of the issues that were discussed here: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37

It's a little depressing Moxie believes federated protocols can't compete with unfederated/proprietary ones. I don't like the idea of all future innovation taking place in the Slacks and WhatsApps rather than the IRCs and SMTPs. Are there any recent counter examples of successful federated protocols? It would be an interesting thought experiment to design a protocol that started with the basic features of IRC and inc…

[deleted]

Re: License update

#70

Post by dlmetcalf »

dlmetcalf wrote: post #37
Arathorn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a few clarifications: * Olm isn't a replacement for 'Signal protocol' - it's just an independent (Apache license) implementation of the same 'double ratchet' cryptographic ratchet that Signal protocol uses under the hood for generating message keys. * Megolm provides the higher layer semantics for using Olm for group conversations in Matrix, and diverges significantly from Signal Protocol as far as I know. * The…

Thanks @Arathorn. That's great to hear an FDroid candidate's available. Great turn around! The only device I'd have to test it on right at the moment, unfortunately doesn't take 3rd party APKs (FDroid's been signed, but I'm reluctant to otherwise open that particular device). Will see what else I can pull together. I could sign the APK with my own OS build, but then I'd miss OTA updates (so a different security risk)…

Hi @Arathorn, the battery drain of that experimental build is certainly noticeable, but not disastrous. In 18 hours on a new Nexus 6p, it's drained the battery 30%. Conversations.IM by comparison had only drained 1%. The next biggest battery drain on that device to Vector, had only taken 3%. I think it's still viable enough for an early release to FDroid for the time being, but with a warning. The fact that you can also turn its background sync on or off, means it's quite fine for the casual reading use case, without notifications one.
Post reply on HN