6 ms·

why cannot signal foss server be built to be installed like any other sane service on a server and apps that just support custom urls? its not rocket science

lucideer 6y ago
The main signal developer (Moxie Marlinspike) is strongly against this architecture and won't accept either 3rd-party apps using the Signal servers, nor the main Signal client using 3rd-party servers.
- 2Gkashmiri 6y ago
  So whats the point having a Foss setup? Its not for promoting clients and servers? Why dont they instead say its source visible, peope can point put vulnerabilities and all because thats what it is at the end of day today. Pretending to be Foss and then not allowing third party clients, servers is not nice imo
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    You can fork the signal client and server and setup a competing network. You just won't be allowed on the official Signal network. That's the entire point of FOSS. Open source vs. open network are fairly orthogonal. AIM and ICQ were never open source, but had several 3rd party clients. Outlook is closed-source, but still federates with other e-mail servers. I'll use an open-hardware analogy. Let's say there's a open-hardware go kart. The publishers of the original go kart also own a race track. They only allow their original design on the race track. You can take their design, modify it and drive anywhere you want. A competing race track is closed hardware, with copyrights and patents on their karts. If you base a kart off of their design, they will sue you. If they deign to let you take your home-built kart designed by someone else on their track, they aren't open hardware. If they publish the exact specifications required for karts to run on their track and encourage home-built karts to run on their tracks, they still aren't open hardware.
    - 2Gkashmiri 6y ago
      that is complicated. why don't they allow third party clients on their servers or third party servers on first party apps? reddit allows clients, matrix, irc, xmpp, even telegram has floss forks that work interdependently. why don't they simply use something like mozilla license, aka copy our code or whatever, just not the name? > That's the entire point of FOSS. foss as in free to check code, submit patches, create clients on and on... i recently read the same question somewhere and the reply was some scary long answer how maintaining a fork is mighty difficult because you have to be few months behind upstream, fix bugs, manage certificates, work on apps.... so essentially make it difficult to set up competition and still pass oss test because source. smh
      - aidenn0 6y ago
        > When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”[1] All of these things are allowed by Signal. Look at what is happening to WhatsApp right now because of damage to its brand. Moxie thinks that allowing 3rd party clients or federated servers would damage the Signal brand. If you disagree with him, go ahead and fork it. There are probably 100s of forks of signal that let you connect to unofficial servers. If it weren't open source that option would not be available to you. How many forks of the (closed source) official AIM client are there? Of the server? In terms of freedom offered by the software Signal is positioned pretty well. 1: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
        2Gkashmiri 6y ago
        are you even reading yourself right? >and to redistribute copies with or without changes. you are saying free to redistribute copies with or without change but you are saying connecting to official server is bad for brand. what happened to copies without change? how can you justify that? arent you restricting that line? if moxie is so worried about the sugarflake brand, why does it not copyright the brand name? shouldnt that solve their problems? why pretend open source when its not
  - anoncake 6y ago
    The point is you can claim to be FOSS and people will buy it.
    - 2Gkashmiri 6y ago
      Thats what I am trying to say. You disallow third party clients from joining lyrical servers because federation bad and fud about "brand". Saying here you go. Open source. You can fork a client but dont connect, you can fork server but dont use official apps. I do not know if GPL code can have this restriction. Its like saying Tesla car has open source or Foss software. Free to fork it but you need to build your own car to run this software. Its free, is open source, just not usable.

lucideer 6y ago

The main signal developer (Moxie Marlinspike) is strongly against this architecture and won't accept either 3rd-party apps using the Signal servers, nor the main Signal client using 3rd-party servers.

2Gkashmiri 6y ago
So whats the point having a Foss setup? Its not for promoting clients and servers? Why dont they instead say its source visible, peope can point put vulnerabilities and all because thats what it is at the end of day today. Pretending to be Foss and then not allowing third party clients, servers is not nice imo
- aidenn0 6y ago
  You can fork the signal client and server and setup a competing network. You just won't be allowed on the official Signal network. That's the entire point of FOSS. Open source vs. open network are fairly orthogonal. AIM and ICQ were never open source, but had several 3rd party clients. Outlook is closed-source, but still federates with other e-mail servers. I'll use an open-hardware analogy. Let's say there's a open-hardware go kart. The publishers of the original go kart also own a race track. They only allow their original design on the race track. You can take their design, modify it and drive anywhere you want. A competing race track is closed hardware, with copyrights and patents on their karts. If you base a kart off of their design, they will sue you. If they deign to let you take your home-built kart designed by someone else on their track, they aren't open hardware. If they publish the exact specifications required for karts to run on their track and encourage home-built karts to run on their tracks, they still aren't open hardware.
  - 2Gkashmiri 6y ago
    that is complicated. why don't they allow third party clients on their servers or third party servers on first party apps? reddit allows clients, matrix, irc, xmpp, even telegram has floss forks that work interdependently. why don't they simply use something like mozilla license, aka copy our code or whatever, just not the name? > That's the entire point of FOSS. foss as in free to check code, submit patches, create clients on and on... i recently read the same question somewhere and the reply was some scary long answer how maintaining a fork is mighty difficult because you have to be few months behind upstream, fix bugs, manage certificates, work on apps.... so essentially make it difficult to set up competition and still pass oss test because source. smh
    - aidenn0 6y ago
      > When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”[1] All of these things are allowed by Signal. Look at what is happening to WhatsApp right now because of damage to its brand. Moxie thinks that allowing 3rd party clients or federated servers would damage the Signal brand. If you disagree with him, go ahead and fork it. There are probably 100s of forks of signal that let you connect to unofficial servers. If it weren't open source that option would not be available to you. How many forks of the (closed source) official AIM client are there? Of the server? In terms of freedom offered by the software Signal is positioned pretty well. 1: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
      - 2Gkashmiri 6y ago
        are you even reading yourself right? >and to redistribute copies with or without changes. you are saying free to redistribute copies with or without change but you are saying connecting to official server is bad for brand. what happened to copies without change? how can you justify that? arent you restricting that line? if moxie is so worried about the sugarflake brand, why does it not copyright the brand name? shouldnt that solve their problems? why pretend open source when its not
- anoncake 6y ago
  The point is you can claim to be FOSS and people will buy it.
  - 2Gkashmiri 6y ago
    Thats what I am trying to say. You disallow third party clients from joining lyrical servers because federation bad and fud about "brand". Saying here you go. Open source. You can fork a client but dont connect, you can fork server but dont use official apps. I do not know if GPL code can have this restriction. Its like saying Tesla car has open source or Foss software. Free to fork it but you need to build your own car to run this software. Its free, is open source, just not usable.