5 ms·

> (...) the app also employs a proprietary open-source encryption protocol (...) Is it possible for something to be open-source and proprietary at the same tim

> (...) the app also employs a proprietary open-source encryption protocol (...) Is it possible for something to be open-source and proprietary at the same time? Is it possible if one assumes the definition of the OSI?

MrsHippy 6y ago
The technical term is "oxymoronic snake oil"
TracePearson 6y ago
Multi-licensing comes to mind but I dont believe that characterization fits in this case as the git repos seem to be GPLv3 and AGPLv3.
core-questions 6y ago
"Proprietary" does not necessarily mean "paid" or some other technical term relating to a source license - it just means "our own variety of X".
- gruez 6y ago
  >it just means "our own variety of X". I don't buy it. Can you find any instances where it's used like that? According to that definition, you could also say "SpiderMonkey is Mozilla's proprietary javascript engine", which is obviously absurd. Furthermore, the definitions listed on wiktionary and merriam-webster both seem to incorporate some sort of exclusivity. Just because it's your own variation doesn't make it proprietary.
  - spijdar 6y ago
    Mozilla most definitely has exclusive ownership of their property. Ask the people who've tried to repackage Firefox without fully stripping the branding, and get prodded by Mozilla's lawyers. Here it's a case of semantics, whether you're talking about the open-source software or the full package including services from Mozilla and the Firefox branding. Firefox as a whole is certainly proprietary to Mozilla, even if the code is not. I suspect the intent re: signal is similar, where the code is indeed open-source, but IIRC signal doesn't network with non-official clients? Probably best to avoid using the word "proprietary" because of the confusion/connotations, but I don't think it's entirely wrong.
a1369209993 6y ago
Is it possible for something to be open-source and proprietary at the same time? It is not. Although in this case, it could perhaps be interpreted as "proprietary protocol for (interacting with?) open-source encryption".
SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
Perfectly possible. It's "proprietary" in contrast to "standardized", not in contrast to "open". The Signal protocol isn't a standard from any standards body (eg ISO, or the IETF), so it's proprietary. Its spec is freely accessible, and free to use, but it's still one company's protocol.

MrsHippy 6y ago

The technical term is "oxymoronic snake oil"

TracePearson 6y ago

Multi-licensing comes to mind but I dont believe that characterization fits in this case as the git repos seem to be GPLv3 and AGPLv3.

core-questions 6y ago

"Proprietary" does not necessarily mean "paid" or some other technical term relating to a source license - it just means "our own variety of X".

gruez 6y ago
>it just means "our own variety of X". I don't buy it. Can you find any instances where it's used like that? According to that definition, you could also say "SpiderMonkey is Mozilla's proprietary javascript engine", which is obviously absurd. Furthermore, the definitions listed on wiktionary and merriam-webster both seem to incorporate some sort of exclusivity. Just because it's your own variation doesn't make it proprietary.
- spijdar 6y ago
  Mozilla most definitely has exclusive ownership of their property. Ask the people who've tried to repackage Firefox without fully stripping the branding, and get prodded by Mozilla's lawyers. Here it's a case of semantics, whether you're talking about the open-source software or the full package including services from Mozilla and the Firefox branding. Firefox as a whole is certainly proprietary to Mozilla, even if the code is not. I suspect the intent re: signal is similar, where the code is indeed open-source, but IIRC signal doesn't network with non-official clients? Probably best to avoid using the word "proprietary" because of the confusion/connotations, but I don't think it's entirely wrong.

a1369209993 6y ago

Is it possible for something to be open-source and proprietary at the same time? It is not. Although in this case, it could perhaps be interpreted as "proprietary protocol for (interacting with?) open-source encryption".

SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago

Perfectly possible. It's "proprietary" in contrast to "standardized", not in contrast to "open". The Signal protocol isn't a standard from any standards body (eg ISO, or the IETF), so it's proprietary. Its spec is freely accessible, and free to use, but it's still one company's protocol.