3 ms·

Mobile VoIP: Client side call quality

37 points by moxie 14y ago

josh2600 14y ago
This is awesome. If anyone from whisper sees this, please get ahold of me off site. I've been trying to say hello but haven't found much in the way of contact info :/.
- moxie 14y ago
  Hey, I'm moxie at whispersystems.org
j_s 14y ago
Impressive! Low-level/low-latency audio on Android has been extra hassle for a long time: https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=3434 https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=3434 I understand and respect the reasons for using GPLv3 but it's still a bit of a bummer every time I see it locking functionality like this away from wide-spread use. My very limited perception is that it comes down to protecting the secret sauce; I can't immediately think of any compelling reason to segment reusable parts of this particular app for 'closer-to-free-as-in-beer' status. The FSF has a page documenting their recommendations for choice of license here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
- mtgx 14y ago
  Do you mean they should use another license so someone else can re-use the entire code in another open source app, or use another license so others can use it in paid apps? What license would you recommend?
  - j_s 14y ago
    They should pick whichever license they are comfortable with, that is their right as the copyright holders. The fact that this is all open source at all is amazing! If my understanding is correct, the software is licensed under the GPLv3 which means that someone else can already re-use any portion of the code in another (GPLv3-compatible) open source app. My personal preference is the LGPL, which attempts to protect the openness of the code while allowing commercial use. The FSF covers their position on this briefly in their discussion on choosing the right license for a project: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html > allowing proprietary software developers to use the covered library, > but providing a weak copyleft that benefits users when they do but they also explain how they prefer to leverage useful functionality to help the spread of free software: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html > By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, > we can help each other's free software packages outdo the > proprietary alternatives
- moxie 14y ago
  It's simple to me: anyone who wishes to take our work and also openly contribute their work are free to do so. Those that don't wish to also openly contribute their work need to contact the copyright holder.
  - j_s 14y ago
    I agree that the license accomplishes your intended purpose in a very straightforward manner, and I do not pretend to have even the slightest footing from which to suggest otherwise (or that you should change it). I was only sharing my selfish desire to see the utility classes you've created to make Android’s AudioMixer API usable for your app become more widely available - some of the functionality you've implemented should have always been supported at the operating system level. As I'm sure you're well aware, licenses like the LGPL attempt to push the balance slightly towards more widespread usability while ensuring any additional contributions return upstream.
dshep 14y ago
Nice website design.
casca 14y ago
Great stuff, thanks Moxie. Any chance you could release WhisperCore/WhisperMonitor (even as a paid app) so non-Apple devices would also have the option of a usable firewall?
- moxie 14y ago
  Thanks. WhisperMonitor is on the roadmap!

37 points by moxie 14y ago

This is awesome. If anyone from whisper sees this, please get ahold of me off site. I've been trying to say hello but haven't found much in the way of contact info :/.

moxie 14y ago
Hey, I'm moxie at whispersystems.org

j_s 14y ago

Impressive! Low-level/low-latency audio on Android has been extra hassle for a long time: https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=3434 https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=3434 I understand and respect the reasons for using GPLv3 but it's still a bit of a bummer every time I see it locking functionality like this away from wide-spread use. My very limited perception is that it comes down to protecting the secret sauce; I can't immediately think of any compelling reason to segment reusable parts of this particular app for 'closer-to-free-as-in-beer' status. The FSF has a page documenting their recommendations for choice of license here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html

mtgx 14y ago
Do you mean they should use another license so someone else can re-use the entire code in another open source app, or use another license so others can use it in paid apps? What license would you recommend?
- j_s 14y ago
  They should pick whichever license they are comfortable with, that is their right as the copyright holders. The fact that this is all open source at all is amazing! If my understanding is correct, the software is licensed under the GPLv3 which means that someone else can already re-use any portion of the code in another (GPLv3-compatible) open source app. My personal preference is the LGPL, which attempts to protect the openness of the code while allowing commercial use. The FSF covers their position on this briefly in their discussion on choosing the right license for a project: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html > allowing proprietary software developers to use the covered library, > but providing a weak copyleft that benefits users when they do but they also explain how they prefer to leverage useful functionality to help the spread of free software: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html > By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, > we can help each other's free software packages outdo the > proprietary alternatives
moxie 14y ago
It's simple to me: anyone who wishes to take our work and also openly contribute their work are free to do so. Those that don't wish to also openly contribute their work need to contact the copyright holder.
- j_s 14y ago
  I agree that the license accomplishes your intended purpose in a very straightforward manner, and I do not pretend to have even the slightest footing from which to suggest otherwise (or that you should change it). I was only sharing my selfish desire to see the utility classes you've created to make Android’s AudioMixer API usable for your app become more widely available - some of the functionality you've implemented should have always been supported at the operating system level. As I'm sure you're well aware, licenses like the LGPL attempt to push the balance slightly towards more widespread usability while ensuring any additional contributions return upstream.

dshep 14y ago

Nice website design.

casca 14y ago

Great stuff, thanks Moxie. Any chance you could release WhisperCore/WhisperMonitor (even as a paid app) so non-Apple devices would also have the option of a usable firewall?

moxie 14y ago
Thanks. WhisperMonitor is on the roadmap!