3 ms·

My main beef with signal is that they release their encryption libraries as GPLv3 not LGPLv3, preventing the use of them in any commercial product that doesn't

by gfodor 10y ago

My main beef with signal is that they release their encryption libraries as GPLv3 not LGPLv3, preventing the use of them in any commercial product that doesn't want to open their source code. Yet, they "worked with" Facebook and WhatsApp to incorporate their protocols presumably providing them with an alternative license. It sure would be nice if companies who wish to add encryption to their messaging products, but didn't have the pull of the bigger guys to warrant OWS's attention, could just use an LGPLed library to do so. If OWS's mission is to bring about widespread encrypted communications, playing favorites with a few larger messaging companies seems to send the wrong message. (The points made in the article, while valid, seem to be splitting hairs relative to the overall net good Signal has provided.)

skndr 10y ago
Why do you think that might be? I can imagine that requiring others to open their source makes their implementation verifiable.
- gfodor 10y ago
  Exactly, which is why they should have required Facebook and WhatsApp to comply with the GPL. Alternatively, they should have created a more flexible license that could be used by Facebook, WhatsApp, or other companies to integrate their software. My point isn't about the GPL per se, but about the unfair playing field they are creating.
  - dublinben 10y ago
    I think the GPL is actually a perfect license in this case. Anyone who wants to use their cipher in another GPL project is free to. Commercial entities who won't do this can pay OWS for their time, expertise and IP in order to get a different license.
    - gfodor 10y ago
      That makes sense -- I guess what it boils down to is it would be nice if OWS were more open about their commercial licensing options, and make it easy for a company to license + integrate their work. As it stands right now it feels like you have to be a Facebook/WhatsApp level company to be able to be worth their time to work with.
pvg 10y ago
Have you tried to get a license from OWS for closed-source commercial use or know of anyone who has? You seem to be assuming that OWS is 'playing favourites'. The reality might be 'most alleged commercial users don't want to pay for this stuff'.

by gfodor 10y ago

skndr 10y ago

Why do you think that might be? I can imagine that requiring others to open their source makes their implementation verifiable.

gfodor 10y ago
Exactly, which is why they should have required Facebook and WhatsApp to comply with the GPL. Alternatively, they should have created a more flexible license that could be used by Facebook, WhatsApp, or other companies to integrate their software. My point isn't about the GPL per se, but about the unfair playing field they are creating.
- dublinben 10y ago
  I think the GPL is actually a perfect license in this case. Anyone who wants to use their cipher in another GPL project is free to. Commercial entities who won't do this can pay OWS for their time, expertise and IP in order to get a different license.
  - gfodor 10y ago
    That makes sense -- I guess what it boils down to is it would be nice if OWS were more open about their commercial licensing options, and make it easy for a company to license + integrate their work. As it stands right now it feels like you have to be a Facebook/WhatsApp level company to be able to be worth their time to work with.

pvg 10y ago

Have you tried to get a license from OWS for closed-source commercial use or know of anyone who has? You seem to be assuming that OWS is 'playing favourites'. The reality might be 'most alleged commercial users don't want to pay for this stuff'.