3 ms·
Extract from that comment: > We haven't patented any of the concepts here, and we've done a lot to explain and popularize them. We're happy for people to use t
by matharmin 9y ago
Extract from that comment:
> We haven't patented any of the concepts here, and we've done a lot to explain and popularize them. We're happy for people to use these concepts to build their own implementations of similar protocols, but we don't want people slapping things together and calling that Signal Protocol.
That doesn't debunk anything in the blog post - it reinforces the point that moxie doesn't want any third-party implementations of the protocol.
- cwyers 9y agoIt sounds like they'll defend the Signal trademark, but not the implementation concepts. I don't see how that's bad.
- chris11 9y agoEspecially with crypto, one small implementation error could ruin any security value. It's completely reasonable that they don't want their trademark used with code they aren't responsible for.
- cwyers 9y agoYeah. "You can do whatever you want with our GPL'd code, so long as you follow the license, and we don't have any patents, just don't use our name/branding on stuff we don't control" is a reasonable way to ensure the reputation of your name. It's the same thing Firefox does with Linux distros who want to add their own patches.
- rpglover64 9y ago> It's the same thing Firefox does with Linux distros who want to add their own patches. "did", I think. I don't know which distros still run into this, but Debian now ships Firefox (RIP Iceweasel).
- 1001101 9y agoOr, conversely, modifications could add to the security value.
- baby 9y agoDid you read the license?