4 ms·

But now the server code is there, so we now have this mobility, no?

by kreetx 6y ago

acrispino 6y ago
Until they decide to go silent for another 11 months
- kreetx 6y ago
  Most of the popular chat-app space is not open source. What is it with Signal that people feel entitled to condemn it for not having the latest commits on github?
  - neolog 6y ago
    What is it with chat apps that people don't condemn them for being closed source? Imagine if GCC hid their changes for a year.
    - kreetx 6y ago
      Sure, it would be nice if any software were open source, but that you are entitled for it? Funny attitude.
      - neolog 6y ago
        There's plenty of writing on that issue [1]. It makes a lot of sense to think of people being actually entitled to certain rights, especially in domains with network effects. Btw, the Signal Foundation is a non-profit organization that benefits from community goodwill based on an open-source ethos. So people are critical when its software is closed source. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
        rOOb85 6y ago
        ...it's software is open source.
        neolog 6y ago
        The reason is that this story is on HN is that the source was previously missing.
        kreetx 6y ago
        I don't think a piece on gnu.org qualifies as "plenty of writing" and for sure doesn't count as basis for what you are entitled for :).
        neolog 6y ago
        > I don't think a piece on gnu.org qualifies as "plenty of writing" There are some links there to other pieces if you want to read more about it. > for sure doesn't count as basis for what you are entitled for I'm not claiming that moral authority flows from the Gnu brand; rather, they provide some information and reasoning which people can use to come to their own conclusions.
        kreetx 6y ago
        Most if not all of the links point to themselves.. It's ok to think that in an ideal world it would be like that, but argumenting as if you were entitled to the source because of it doesn't seem that it will persuade others. After all, if you aren't empathetic to the reality, how would you expect others be empathetic to you?
        neolog 6y ago
        The reality is pretty diverse. Plenty of people use mostly or only free software. I certainly do.
  - acrispino 6y ago
    By silent, I don't just mean they held back commits. They were evasive about it the entire time. They could have explained and chose not to. They don't owe me anything but I think it's a shame that the leading open source messenger app does such a poor job of communicating with its users and the larger open source community.
lucideer 6y ago
Yes and no. Signal is not actually designed with mobility in mind (in fact I would argue, based on Moxie's 36C3 talks, it was designed to be and continues to be persistently kept anti-mobility). That fact is independent of it being open- or closed-source. However, if the server is open-source, it opens the door for future mobility in the event of org change. If it's closed-source, you get what's currently happening with WhatsApp. In actuality, if we had something federated, with mobility pre-baked in, having a closed-source server would be less of a security-risk (the gp's comments on only needing to trust the client would apply more strongly since mobility removes the power to change from server maintainers) Basically: - with multi-server clients (e.g. Matrix/OMEMO), you have no dependency on any orgs' server, so their being open-source is less relevant (provided the protocol remains open—this can still go wrong, e.g. with GChat/FBMessenger's use of XMPP). - with single-server clients (Telegram/WhatsApp/Signal), you are dependent on a single server, so that server being open-source is important to ensure the community can make changes in the event of org change.
- kreetx 6y ago
  So in principle we do have this mobility because you can run your own servers. Perhaps it is not all that unlikely that they will do a bridge to matrix.
  - lucideer 6y ago
    You cannot currently run your own Signal server, no. That's what prevents mobility. You are free to examine the source of theirs (if they choose to continue releasing it), but you cannot self-host.
    - kreetx 6y ago
      If both the code and the server are open source then how come you can't run it?
      - lucideer 6y ago
        If you checkout the client source, compile it, and install it on your own mobile device, you can then connect it to your own self-hosted server instance. However Signal's own server instance will then block your client (and there's no way to connect the client binaries they distribute to anything but their own server). So you would have to then follow the above steps for any contacts you want to communicate with, distributing your own client to them. Signal devs have generally been extremely hostile toward anyone wishing to do this however. The only way out of this situation would be if the Signal project itself was forked and people moved to that forked open-source multi-server client.

But now the server code is there, so we now have this mobility, no?

by kreetx 6y ago

But now the server code is there, so we now have this mobility, no?

acrispino 6y ago

Until they decide to go silent for another 11 months

kreetx 6y ago
Most of the popular chat-app space is not open source. What is it with Signal that people feel entitled to condemn it for not having the latest commits on github?
- neolog 6y ago
  What is it with chat apps that people don't condemn them for being closed source? Imagine if GCC hid their changes for a year.
  - kreetx 6y ago
    Sure, it would be nice if any software were open source, but that you are entitled for it? Funny attitude.
    - neolog 6y ago
      There's plenty of writing on that issue [1]. It makes a lot of sense to think of people being actually entitled to certain rights, especially in domains with network effects. Btw, the Signal Foundation is a non-profit organization that benefits from community goodwill based on an open-source ethos. So people are critical when its software is closed source. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
      - rOOb85 6y ago
        ...it's software is open source.
        neolog 6y ago
        The reason is that this story is on HN is that the source was previously missing.
      - kreetx 6y ago
        I don't think a piece on gnu.org qualifies as "plenty of writing" and for sure doesn't count as basis for what you are entitled for :).
        neolog 6y ago
        > I don't think a piece on gnu.org qualifies as "plenty of writing" There are some links there to other pieces if you want to read more about it. > for sure doesn't count as basis for what you are entitled for I'm not claiming that moral authority flows from the Gnu brand; rather, they provide some information and reasoning which people can use to come to their own conclusions.
        kreetx 6y ago
        Most if not all of the links point to themselves.. It's ok to think that in an ideal world it would be like that, but argumenting as if you were entitled to the source because of it doesn't seem that it will persuade others. After all, if you aren't empathetic to the reality, how would you expect others be empathetic to you?
        neolog 6y ago
        The reality is pretty diverse. Plenty of people use mostly or only free software. I certainly do.
- acrispino 6y ago
  By silent, I don't just mean they held back commits. They were evasive about it the entire time. They could have explained and chose not to. They don't owe me anything but I think it's a shame that the leading open source messenger app does such a poor job of communicating with its users and the larger open source community.

lucideer 6y ago

Yes and no. Signal is not actually designed with mobility in mind (in fact I would argue, based on Moxie's 36C3 talks, it was designed to be and continues to be persistently kept anti-mobility). That fact is independent of it being open- or closed-source. However, if the server is open-source, it opens the door for future mobility in the event of org change. If it's closed-source, you get what's currently happening with WhatsApp. In actuality, if we had something federated, with mobility pre-baked in, having a closed-source server would be less of a security-risk (the gp's comments on only needing to trust the client would apply more strongly since mobility removes the power to change from server maintainers) Basically: - with multi-server clients (e.g. Matrix/OMEMO), you have no dependency on any orgs' server, so their being open-source is less relevant (provided the protocol remains open—this can still go wrong, e.g. with GChat/FBMessenger's use of XMPP). - with single-server clients (Telegram/WhatsApp/Signal), you are dependent on a single server, so that server being open-source is important to ensure the community can make changes in the event of org change.

kreetx 6y ago
So in principle we do have this mobility because you can run your own servers. Perhaps it is not all that unlikely that they will do a bridge to matrix.
- lucideer 6y ago
  You cannot currently run your own Signal server, no. That's what prevents mobility. You are free to examine the source of theirs (if they choose to continue releasing it), but you cannot self-host.
  - kreetx 6y ago
    If both the code and the server are open source then how come you can't run it?
    - lucideer 6y ago
      If you checkout the client source, compile it, and install it on your own mobile device, you can then connect it to your own self-hosted server instance. However Signal's own server instance will then block your client (and there's no way to connect the client binaries they distribute to anything but their own server). So you would have to then follow the above steps for any contacts you want to communicate with, distributing your own client to them. Signal devs have generally been extremely hostile toward anyone wishing to do this however. The only way out of this situation would be if the Signal project itself was forked and people moved to that forked open-source multi-server client.