5 ms·

Moxie replied in this Forbes article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2016/05/11/wire-skype-sued-moxie-marlinspike-extortion/#9dc5acd3ff59 http://www

by qznc 10y ago

Moxie replied in this Forbes article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2016/05/11/wire-skype-sued-moxie-marlinspike-extortion/#9dc5acd3ff59 http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2016/05/11/wire-s...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mike_hearn 10y ago
That isn't quite a reply. It's a second hand account of Moxie denying that he asked for money. This story seems very troubling. The Wire guys made very specific claims (where did they get the >$2M figure from ... and why would they simply invent such a figure). If their implementation is in Rust then it cannot be the same as OWS' code. It would be good if OWS could publicly clarify that reimplementing the Signal Protocol/Axoltl does not trigger any copyright claims by OWS even if doing so involved reading the GPLd version.
- cm3 10y ago
  So, https://github.com/WhisperSystems/libsignal-protocol-c https://github.com/WhisperSystems/libsignal-protocol-c is GPL3. If I implement haskell-signal and consult documentation and the code to understand the protocol but do not copy code, it's not clean room, but Open Whisper wants to see the protocol spread, so it's in their interest to more clearly state how someone is allowed to reimplement Signal in Common Lisp or FORTH, if one were so inclined, and release it under MIT.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    That's not what happened. Wire didn't consult OWS documentation. They used the code itself, and (apparently) baked it into a closed-source product. How much sympathy am I meant to have for those people?
    - cm3 10y ago
      You kinda repeat yourself here, and it's not really a response to my post here. I found the answer from a sibling post: https://twitter.com/moxie/status/730289041493483520 https://twitter.com/moxie/status/730289041493483520 Moxie should use this incident to prominently make it clear in the protocol documentation that independent implementations are welcome. That's our best bet until there's an IETF RFC based on Axolotol everyone can implement instead.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Since nobody has provided any evidence that OWS ever suggested that using their documentation was improper, you might just as well suggest Moxie use this "incident" as an opportunity to announce that he's stopped beating his wife.
        cm3 10y ago
        I don't understand the cultural reference and I'll assume it's irrelevant, but the Oracle vs Google saga made me very very cautious when it comes to clean room reimplementations of public bits, and if I were to earn money with such a library, I'm afraid I'd need more than Moxie's tweet.
        tptacek 10y ago
        Seriously? Oracle? Maybe this cultural reference will be clearer: https://frinkiac.com/gif/S07E18/362795/366966/IExvb2sgb3V0IEl0Y2h5LAogaGUncyBJcmlzaCE= https://frinkiac.com/gif/S07E18/362795/366966/IExvb2sgb3V0IE... This is FUD.
        cm3 10y ago
        This cultural reference I get even less than the first one, but I'll just ignore the references. I'm not sure if you're missing the context. This branch of the thread forked off me asking the same thing as another poster, namely the likelihood of being bothered by IP or Copyright claims for a real, proper clean room implementation of the protocol, zero code copied, assuming there is sufficient documentation available. Oracle vs Google is relevant, but it seems we're talking past each other and maybe I'm missing a point you're making.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  https://twitter.com/moxie/status/730230490653851648 https://twitter.com/moxie/status/730230490653851648 https://twitter.com/moxie/status/730230320553828352 https://twitter.com/moxie/status/730230320553828352 The Wire guys also withdrew the complaint.
- codelitt 10y ago
  Here's an article including first hand account and quotes from Moxie: http://news.softpedia.com/news/wire-drops-lawsuit-alleging-extortion-from-signal-co-founder-503850.shtml http://news.softpedia.com/news/wire-drops-lawsuit-alleging-e... IMHO, no credence should be given to lawsuits and accusations made without proof and right before OWS integrates with two huge partners. The accuser even filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with prejudice. Accusations without proof are just mudslinging. Moxie has a great track record; the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defendant.
- neerdowell 10y ago
  > The Wire guys made very specific claims (where did they get the >$2M figure from ... and why would they simply invent such a figure). Their court filing[0] says the license fee was "unspecified" and the $2 million figure was based on "information and belief" which is legal terminology used to dodge perjury[1]. If they had really been told that, they wouldn't be using terms that mean "I heard that from somewhere second-hand and think it might be true". [0] https://www.scribd.com/doc/311974670/Wire-Swiss-GmbH-v-Quiet-Riddle-Ventures-LLC https://www.scribd.com/doc/311974670/Wire-Swiss-GmbH-v-Quiet... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/information_and_belief https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/information_and_belief
- rmc 10y ago
  > does not trigger any copyright claims by OWS even if doing so involved reading the GPLd version. I'm pretty sure having GPLed code open, reading it and writing some new software counts as a "derived work", and the GPL would apply. That's what most people who release FLOSS want to happen.

by qznc 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mike_hearn 10y ago

That isn't quite a reply. It's a second hand account of Moxie denying that he asked for money. This story seems very troubling. The Wire guys made very specific claims (where did they get the >$2M figure from ... and why would they simply invent such a figure). If their implementation is in Rust then it cannot be the same as OWS' code. It would be good if OWS could publicly clarify that reimplementing the Signal Protocol/Axoltl does not trigger any copyright claims by OWS even if doing so involved reading the GPLd version.

cm3 10y ago
So, https://github.com/WhisperSystems/libsignal-protocol-c https://github.com/WhisperSystems/libsignal-protocol-c is GPL3. If I implement haskell-signal and consult documentation and the code to understand the protocol but do not copy code, it's not clean room, but Open Whisper wants to see the protocol spread, so it's in their interest to more clearly state how someone is allowed to reimplement Signal in Common Lisp or FORTH, if one were so inclined, and release it under MIT.
- tptacek 10y ago
  That's not what happened. Wire didn't consult OWS documentation. They used the code itself, and (apparently) baked it into a closed-source product. How much sympathy am I meant to have for those people?
  - cm3 10y ago
    You kinda repeat yourself here, and it's not really a response to my post here. I found the answer from a sibling post: https://twitter.com/moxie/status/730289041493483520 https://twitter.com/moxie/status/730289041493483520 Moxie should use this incident to prominently make it clear in the protocol documentation that independent implementations are welcome. That's our best bet until there's an IETF RFC based on Axolotol everyone can implement instead.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Since nobody has provided any evidence that OWS ever suggested that using their documentation was improper, you might just as well suggest Moxie use this "incident" as an opportunity to announce that he's stopped beating his wife.
      - cm3 10y ago
        I don't understand the cultural reference and I'll assume it's irrelevant, but the Oracle vs Google saga made me very very cautious when it comes to clean room reimplementations of public bits, and if I were to earn money with such a library, I'm afraid I'd need more than Moxie's tweet.
        tptacek 10y ago
        Seriously? Oracle? Maybe this cultural reference will be clearer: https://frinkiac.com/gif/S07E18/362795/366966/IExvb2sgb3V0IEl0Y2h5LAogaGUncyBJcmlzaCE= https://frinkiac.com/gif/S07E18/362795/366966/IExvb2sgb3V0IE... This is FUD.
        cm3 10y ago
        This cultural reference I get even less than the first one, but I'll just ignore the references. I'm not sure if you're missing the context. This branch of the thread forked off me asking the same thing as another poster, namely the likelihood of being bothered by IP or Copyright claims for a real, proper clean room implementation of the protocol, zero code copied, assuming there is sufficient documentation available. Oracle vs Google is relevant, but it seems we're talking past each other and maybe I'm missing a point you're making.
maxerickson 10y ago
https://twitter.com/moxie/status/730230490653851648 https://twitter.com/moxie/status/730230490653851648 https://twitter.com/moxie/status/730230320553828352 https://twitter.com/moxie/status/730230320553828352 The Wire guys also withdrew the complaint.
codelitt 10y ago
Here's an article including first hand account and quotes from Moxie: http://news.softpedia.com/news/wire-drops-lawsuit-alleging-extortion-from-signal-co-founder-503850.shtml http://news.softpedia.com/news/wire-drops-lawsuit-alleging-e... IMHO, no credence should be given to lawsuits and accusations made without proof and right before OWS integrates with two huge partners. The accuser even filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with prejudice. Accusations without proof are just mudslinging. Moxie has a great track record; the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defendant.
neerdowell 10y ago
> The Wire guys made very specific claims (where did they get the >$2M figure from ... and why would they simply invent such a figure). Their court filing[0] says the license fee was "unspecified" and the $2 million figure was based on "information and belief" which is legal terminology used to dodge perjury[1]. If they had really been told that, they wouldn't be using terms that mean "I heard that from somewhere second-hand and think it might be true". [0] https://www.scribd.com/doc/311974670/Wire-Swiss-GmbH-v-Quiet-Riddle-Ventures-LLC https://www.scribd.com/doc/311974670/Wire-Swiss-GmbH-v-Quiet... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/information_and_belief https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/information_and_belief
rmc 10y ago
> does not trigger any copyright claims by OWS even if doing so involved reading the GPLd version. I'm pretty sure having GPLed code open, reading it and writing some new software counts as a "derived work", and the GPL would apply. That's what most people who release FLOSS want to happen.