4 ms·

Please, please don't. Open Whisper Systems is a company that uses "open-source" as a marketing term while bullying the people who choose to take advantage of i

Please, please don't. Open Whisper Systems is a company that uses "open-source" as a marketing term while bullying the people who choose to take advantage of it. You can build your own client, but if you start to distribute it, they'll ban you from using their servers[1], with an explanation plain ridiculous for a company that took thousands of dollars from various open source foundations. The server is open source, but again, you have no guarantee that the official (and only) signal server is anything close to the software they published as open source. Telegram at least publishes libraries that you can actually use with their official service [2]. You still have to „trust the company” to a certain degree: you'll never get proper security without something like Matrix or XMPP where you can be in control over both ends of the communication. Still, a company like OWS or Telegram can do more or less to put users more in control over their end: and I'd argue that OWS is doing way less for that than Telegram does. [1] https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issuecomment-217211165 https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco... [2] https://github.com/tdlib/td https://github.com/tdlib/td EDIT: removed "dishonest" – I wish I had strikethrough to use :)

detaro 8y ago
That's not dishonest. You might not like their policy (I'm not a fan of it either), but it's clearly stated, based on consistent logic and not at odds with the software being open-source.
- tadzik_ 8y ago
  Fair point; I guess too often I expect "free software" when I see "open-source". I don't think I'm the only one though, at least to a degree. When the only thing you allow your users is to read the source code, you are technically open-source, but it's the kind of openness that doesn't guarantee anything. More and more often companies use the term "Open source software" because they know that people will walk around the internet and say "it's safe and secure: after all, it's open source!" OWS is aware of this, which is especially valuable when you brag about privacy as a communications network, but they deliberately chose to limit what you can do with said "open source" – to a degree that's quite ridiculous for a company that calls themselves "Open (...) Systems" :)
  - detaro 8y ago
    They don't just allow you to read the source. You can start a competitor to them, using their own source code! The software is under (A)GPL, how is it not "Free Software"? You're mixing up rights to the software with rights to Signal's name and infrastructure.
akvadrako 8y ago
Signal is completely "open-source", but that doesn't mean their chat network is open. How can you even confuse those things?
- tadzik_ 8y ago
  I don't think I'm confusing them – but I do think that their "open-source"-ness is virtually worthless, as the only thing you're allowed to do is read the source yourself and hope that it's the same thing that you're getting from the official packages and servers.
  - Tomte 8y ago
    That's a totally different aspect that reproducible builds are supposed to solve. Your "problem" wouldn't be solved by allowing third-party clients. You still don't know what the server source is.
ta2223332221 8y ago
"Open source" means the SOURCE CODE is OPEN. Which it is. The internet is full of half-baked "secure" and "private" chat clients and servers. Security is hard to get right. I'm guessing they don't want the reputation of Signal muddled up with some other random client. IIUC anyone can run their own network, and make it as open as they like, using their code, they just can't call it Signal. Much like how Firefox and RedHat use their trademarks.
- tadzik_ 8y ago
  Sure it is: but how do you know if it really is the source code of Signal? For all we know, both the Signal network and its client are a half-baked "secure" and "private" chat, and the source code they publish is an elaborate decoy (though probably a subset of the real underlying code, for obvious reasons).
  - ta2223332221 8y ago
    but how do you know if it really is the source code of Signal? That's a valid question which used to bug me about open source projects. But apparently they finally figured out that the output of the source needs to be deterministic and match the binaries they ship. This property is called "reproducible builds". Signal claims to have them (modulo some third party libraries), though I haven't personally verified it: https://signal.org/blog/reproducible-android/ https://signal.org/blog/reproducible-android/ Honestly though, trust boils down to trusting people. I trust Signal because I trust Moxie, and I trust Moxie because of his reputation among the prominent security experts publicly active on the internet, at least the ones that I find convincing. As a security layman, that's the best I can do.
    - cfrs 8y ago
      Interesting whether apple's bitcode and app thinning breaks "reproducible builds". Also I'm not sure you still can get IPA file (app binary) from appstore/iphone.
  - untog 8y ago
saagarjha 8y ago
Telegram is far from being "open-source", either–they reap the benefits of being associated with GPLv2 but fail to publish their code in a timely manner, and appear to be infringing on a number of third-party licenses: https://github.com/overtake/TelegramSwift/issues/163 https://github.com/overtake/TelegramSwift/issues/163

detaro 8y ago

That's not dishonest. You might not like their policy (I'm not a fan of it either), but it's clearly stated, based on consistent logic and not at odds with the software being open-source.

tadzik_ 8y ago
Fair point; I guess too often I expect "free software" when I see "open-source". I don't think I'm the only one though, at least to a degree. When the only thing you allow your users is to read the source code, you are technically open-source, but it's the kind of openness that doesn't guarantee anything. More and more often companies use the term "Open source software" because they know that people will walk around the internet and say "it's safe and secure: after all, it's open source!" OWS is aware of this, which is especially valuable when you brag about privacy as a communications network, but they deliberately chose to limit what you can do with said "open source" – to a degree that's quite ridiculous for a company that calls themselves "Open (...) Systems" :)
- detaro 8y ago
  They don't just allow you to read the source. You can start a competitor to them, using their own source code! The software is under (A)GPL, how is it not "Free Software"? You're mixing up rights to the software with rights to Signal's name and infrastructure.

akvadrako 8y ago

Signal is completely "open-source", but that doesn't mean their chat network is open. How can you even confuse those things?

tadzik_ 8y ago
I don't think I'm confusing them – but I do think that their "open-source"-ness is virtually worthless, as the only thing you're allowed to do is read the source yourself and hope that it's the same thing that you're getting from the official packages and servers.
- Tomte 8y ago
  That's a totally different aspect that reproducible builds are supposed to solve. Your "problem" wouldn't be solved by allowing third-party clients. You still don't know what the server source is.

ta2223332221 8y ago

"Open source" means the SOURCE CODE is OPEN. Which it is. The internet is full of half-baked "secure" and "private" chat clients and servers. Security is hard to get right. I'm guessing they don't want the reputation of Signal muddled up with some other random client. IIUC anyone can run their own network, and make it as open as they like, using their code, they just can't call it Signal. Much like how Firefox and RedHat use their trademarks.

tadzik_ 8y ago
Sure it is: but how do you know if it really is the source code of Signal? For all we know, both the Signal network and its client are a half-baked "secure" and "private" chat, and the source code they publish is an elaborate decoy (though probably a subset of the real underlying code, for obvious reasons).
- ta2223332221 8y ago
  but how do you know if it really is the source code of Signal? That's a valid question which used to bug me about open source projects. But apparently they finally figured out that the output of the source needs to be deterministic and match the binaries they ship. This property is called "reproducible builds". Signal claims to have them (modulo some third party libraries), though I haven't personally verified it: https://signal.org/blog/reproducible-android/ https://signal.org/blog/reproducible-android/ Honestly though, trust boils down to trusting people. I trust Signal because I trust Moxie, and I trust Moxie because of his reputation among the prominent security experts publicly active on the internet, at least the ones that I find convincing. As a security layman, that's the best I can do.
  - cfrs 8y ago
    Interesting whether apple's bitcode and app thinning breaks "reproducible builds". Also I'm not sure you still can get IPA file (app binary) from appstore/iphone.
- untog 8y ago

saagarjha 8y ago

Telegram is far from being "open-source", either–they reap the benefits of being associated with GPLv2 but fail to publish their code in a timely manner, and appear to be infringing on a number of third-party licenses: https://github.com/overtake/TelegramSwift/issues/163 https://github.com/overtake/TelegramSwift/issues/163