Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco... ?
> If you think running servers is difficult and expensive (you're right), ask yourself why you feel entitled for us to run them for your product. I don't get Moxie's stance. Aren't they running Signal as a public service? This sentence reads as if LibreSignal would be stealing profits from Signal by using later's servers. But there is no intention to raise profits / add monetization, is there?
Other than monetization, I get Moxie stance, even though I disagree. If you control both the server and the client and don't allow alternative clients and federation, it is easier to make changes, keep focus, and you don't have to deal with complains from users with crappy clients.
Signal is also security and privacy-focused, and Moxie presumably want to keep that image. What if some forks throw away that aspect, for example by storing plain text message in "the cloud". Personally, I actually don't care that much about the privacy/security aspect of Signal, as weird as it may sound, for me, Signal is just a nice, no nonsense messenger with security as a bonus and I would welcome a fork that makes a convenience trade off. But these less secure clients may undermine trust for those who really see it as a primary reason.