5 ms·

Looks like this is the first commit where it was added: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon-android/commit/a0cbf0fa31cbed1993daf6fda065739341f51643 https://git

• nicoburns 10mo ago
  Thanks! It looks like that repo is GPL though, which I respect but isn't going to work for my usage (where I'm trying to build a generic UI toolkit that can be used by all sorts of applications including closed source ones).
  • deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  • cyberax 10mo ago
    If you need something permissively licensed, I believe microG also has implementation of the notification protocol: https://github.com/microg/GmsCore/blob/cb9be8f682d7649dae23bcc1619f8c5717de5b9d/play-services-core/src/main/java/org/microg/gms/gcm/McsService.java#L556 https://github.com/microg/GmsCore/blob/cb9be8f682d7649dae23b... It's Apache 2.
  • grishka 10mo ago
    It's just two broadcast receivers (one for receiving the push token, another for receiving actual notifications), and one broadcast sender to ask GSF to give you a token. This code is so trivial it's not even worth separating into a library. Here's how you request a push token: Intent intent = new Intent("com.google.iid.TOKEN_REQUEST"); intent.setPackage("com.google.android.gms"); intent.putExtra("app", PendingIntent.getBroadcast(context, 0, new Intent(), PendingIntent.FLAG_IMMUTABLE)); intent.putExtra("sender", FCM_SENDER_ID); intent.putExtra("subtype", FCM_SENDER_ID); intent.putExtra("scope", "*"); intent.putExtra("kid", "|ID|1|"); context.sendBroadcast(intent); Here are the two receivers: <receiver android:name=".PushNotificationReceiver" android:exported="true" android:permission="com.google.android.c2dm.permission.SEND"> <intent-filter> <action android:name="com.google.android.c2dm.intent.RECEIVE" /> </intent-filter> </receiver> <receiver android:name=".api.PushSubscriptionManager$RegistrationReceiver" android:exported="true" android:permission="com.google.android.c2dm.permission.SEND"> <intent-filter> <action android:name="com.google.android.c2dm.intent.REGISTRATION"/> </intent-filter> </receiver> The first one is where you get notifications. The parameters you sent from the server will simply be your intent extras. The second one is where you get push tokens. There will be a "registration_id" extra string which is your token. It may start with "|ID|1|" (the "kid" parameter from the request, not quite sure what it does), in which case you need to remove that part. You want to refresh your push token every time your app gets updated and also just periodically if you haven't done it in a while. I do it every 30 days.
    • threecheese 10mo ago
      Did you just invent a way to circumvent the GPL? Brilliant! j/k ofc
      • prophesi 10mo ago
        Their comment would technically be proprietary code since there's no license alongside it, but grishka wrote the original implementation of the reverse engineered code in that mastodon commit in the first place. So I'd imagine it's free game to use it as a reference (IANAL)
        • dotancohen 10mo ago
          Grishka expresses that the code is trivial. Trivial inventions are not covered by patents. I believe, therefore, that a license for trivial code is not necessary. But if someone knows better I would appreciate any correction. Legal matters are seldom clear or logical. Your jurisdiction may vary, etc etc.
          • oezi 10mo ago
            This is a copyright question not patent one.
          • hxtk 10mo ago
            Patent != copyright. You can patent an algorithm (e.g., Adaptive Replacement Caching, which was scheduled to go into public domain this year but unfortunately got renewed successfully) but when it gets to the level of an actual specific implementation, it's a matter of copyright law. It's why black-box clones where you look at an application and just try to make one with the same externally-observable behavior without looking at the code is legal (as long as you don't recycle copyrighted assets like images or icons) but can be infringing if you reuse any of the actual source code. This was an issue that got settled early on and got covered in my SWE ethics class in college, but then more recently was re-tried in Oracle v Google in the case of Google cloning the Java standard library for the Android SDK. I have no idea how copyright applies here. StackOverflow has a rule in their terms of use that all the user-generated content there is redistributable under some kind of creative commons license that makes it easy to reuse. Perhaps HN has a similar rule? Not that I'm aware of, though.