4 ms·
Well, equally, GP could've disclosed their conflict of interests instead of just using a hit&run one-line red herring. OP makes a post advocating not having to
by throwawaylolx 8y ago
Well, equally, GP could've disclosed their conflict of interests instead of just using a hit&run one-line red herring. OP makes a post advocating not having to trust a server, and most upvoted comment is someone asking them to open their server so they can trust it? Doesn't make much sense..
- throwawaymath 8y agoAgreed, they could disclose a conflict of interest. But I don't think it matters here, because their request could reasonably have been brought up by someone unaffiliated with Signal. In other words - you don't need to be affiliated with Signal to be in favor of open sourcing the server-side code. It's a fairly common complaint on HN, and I can see why it was the top comment for a while even if I don't ultimately agree with the need to open source the code. Likewise, if you look at the link to the GitHub issue you can see many other people likewise asking for - or reacting to responses to - open source the server code. Do all those people have conflicts of interest? Is it possible that the affiliation with Signal doesn't matter here? Then be charitable, and let your actual reason for not fulfilling the request stand on its own.