3 ms·
Well, part of the point of the GPL (under which the official client is licensed) is that you can't really prevent people from doing that. Of course the party op
by 4bpp 4y ago
Well, part of the point of the GPL (under which the official client is licensed) is that you can't really prevent people from doing that. Of course the party operating the servers has the discretion to ban users of modified clients on sight, but recognising those users may be difficult. The GPL forces them to provide sources with any new release of the official client, and barring some sort of endpoint integrity attestation in the spirit of DRM systems in games (which a far larger segment of their target group than those who would use unofficial clients would reject) they could not distinguish a patched build whose behaviour on the network is the same as the official client from their own.
I think any "homesteading the noosphere"-style arguments that grant Moxie moral rights to control the use of the software that go beyond his contractual rights are rendered much less compelling by the presence of network effects. To interface with Moxie's captive userbase, you can't avoid trespassing on his homestead.
- akerl_ 4y agoThe GPL doesn't require them to provide source with any new release of the official client. They're the author, and hold the copyright. They can decide tomorrow that all future versions of Signal will be closed-source, and then just stop providing source. They can't retroactively un-GPL existing released versions/code.
- 4bpp 4y agoFor them to relicense it, they would need to hold the copyright to all the code. Do the Signal authors actually have it?