#signal server is now officially closed source, making it de facto a worse-looking telegram.

lemmy.ml/post/55595

@danielinux @mmu_man That’s just not how it works.

While I agree that this is sad, something is not closed source just because the code is not public.

@danielinux @mmu_man To be more clear : there’s nothing in the (A)GPL (or any other common FLOSS licence) that requires the code to be public.

The only thing is that the code must be shared with users that ask for it.

@Arcaik @mmu_man

The problem is not just an AGPL violation here, even though the license explicitly requires to show the code if you are providing a service on top of it. According to AGPL-3, if you are using the service you are the user. Good luck anyway submitting such a request to them at this point.

The actual problem is that #signal is no longer willing to publicly share the sources of their server platform, which is what #signalapp users criticized the most about others in the past, #telegram in particular.

@danielinux @Arcaik @mmu_man also, telegram had at least plausible explanation ("we were going to make server-side source code open from the start, but then we were tipped that a certain government is going to use them to set up their own surveilled messenger and block Telegram on its territory, so that people would not complain too loud because there is a government-managed alternative which is just as great but surveilled; and we had to scrap our plans").

I don't think there is any explanation from Signal?

@IngaLovinde @danielinux @mmu_man > I don't think there is any explanation from Signal?

AFAIK, they develop new features internally (in this case username support) and release when it’s done.

@IngaLovinde @danielinux @mmu_man Also what you say about Telegram wouldn’t apply to Signal. Signal’s server is mainly a way to put people together, but it doesn’t really stores users data or metadata. Even if you hijacked signal’s infrastructure, you wouldn’t be able to access too much PII.

Telegram otoh is a shitty messenger with no end to end encryption by default, an unknown, in-house protocol, plain text backup, etc.

Follow

@Arcaik @danielinux @mmu_man The point was not about hijacking Telegram's infrastructure, the point was about hijacking Telegram's features.

For example, Russia tried to block Telegram a couple of years ago. Everybody just started using proxy servers and VPNs just because Telegram is so convenient, that it made sense to tolerate the inconvenience of block evasion.
Government tried to promote some affiliated messengers (e.g. TamTam: ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D ), but they were extremely crappy because the government and its affiliated companies are just so incompetent, and nobody started using them.
In the end, the government had to give up and unblock Telegram 2 years later.

But if government would start its own Telegram clone back then, even if it was 100% surveilled (modifying client and server code to remove all and any encryption, which is much easier than creating your own messenger from scratch)? A lot of people would probably start using it, because they don't care much about surveillance. And other would have to follow because of the network effects.

· · Web · 0 · 0 · 1
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Embracing space

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!