Not jumping anywhere here.
Never been a signal user, neither will I ever install it, because I've never trusted the people behind it and their silly arguments. And for a number of other reasons that are not new.
Check this old toot, for example:
I don't trust Telegram 100% but it's "good enough" for my everyday use, easier to install on a de-googled phone, and made by people that know how to interact with other people.
What you are saying about signal server is true as long as you trust that they are doing things the way they tell you. (E.g. run a server that is similar to the sources they publish).
N.B.: I am not defending Telegram here, only saying that signal has become redundant now that they cannot claim server transparency anymore. On top of that, there is the unbearable attitude of its developers, who fight against decentralization (as a general concept), possibly on behalf of someone else leveraging on their charisma on a certain community, and strongly opposing to alternatives to G push notifications and playstore distribution. Even the telegram-gpl client is better than that.
@guenther the original author did not claim a violation, they wrote that it "raises questions about the legality of this situation". The question being, in my interpretation, if the code has a centralized copyright or not. I have said in the past that AGPL alone is not enough to protect a project from suddenly changing direction.
Linux resisted acquisition from both Google and Microsoft for decades because of the combination of copyleft and its distributed authorship, which makes it impossible to buy it straight off Torvald's hands.
Everyone has a price, #signal was already very openly sponsored by google, helped whitewashing facebook and had to push people to google market by boycotting all other distribution channels, and demonize decentralization in return.
That is fair if the code is 100% owned by signal.
But, please follow me on this: since nobody is supposed to run #signal servers but themselves, you would agree that the AGPL label is used a mere marketing billboard. As @IngaLovinde correctly pointed out in this thread, it already did not guarantee that what you see is what you get as service.
Today all the doubts about the actual software running on the server side are gone. You can be sure that they won't share their sources, so you cannot know what they are running.
@IngaLovinde while I agree they could have already technically done this, AGPL should be there exactly to prevent this.
When you are using the service you have the right to see the code that is used on the server side. This is no longer happening, and that's why the original poster is concerned.
Their marketing strategy so far consisted throwing FUD on the competition to create the false hope that #signal was the only viable solution for instant messaging that would protect the users' privacy in a transparent way. And they did this while defending their position on centralization and killing any attempt of federation and decentralization along the way.
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.
When researchers find a flaw in the way #Signal #Signalapp circumvents censorship in Iran (leading to identify its users), their issue get deleted from Signal's Microsoft Github and they get banned from Signal's repository...
..but only because they allegedly violated a "code of conduct" by being "disrespectful"!
Morality is safe! Iranians, maybe not... As long as we don't hear about it, there is no problem, right?
https://yasha.substack.com/p/7d09b776-4924-42e3-8387-9d2ff9cdb068 Is signal a USA government op? Interesting theory. Well, at least it would explain Moxie's spreading FUD about decentralization and the fediverse.
"Abbiamo pubblicato un breve articolo introduttivo per spiegare cosa si intende quando si parla di Tech Worker. Un termine che vuole superare le divisioni su base tecnica e salariale, mettendo insieme quei lavoratori del settore tecnologico che hanno interessi in comune."
There's the old saying that if you're not paying for it then you're the product being sold. But according to Zuboff even that's not the case. You're merely a raw material going into the making the product.
Alcuni servizi attivi su gattini.ninja
🗒️ https://pad.gattini.ninja un quaderno per scrivere insieme
🧮 https://calc.gattini.ninja fogli di calcolo condivisi
🚚 https://transfer.gattini.ninja per spedire file da un punto ad un altro
🗄️ https://drive.gattini.ninja cartelle condivise e cifrate
📔 https://man.gattini.ninja la lenta e poco organizzata documentazione
Do you mean that Facebook automatically acquired copyrights also on all the content?
Does removing the photos from the server not terminate the right of using those (commercially or not) on the platform in the future altogether?
@firstname.lastname@example.org and this is yet another reason why I never contribute to permissive open source software.
One day your BSD-2 stuff falls in the wrong hands. Also it sucks not knowing if an improved, closed source version of your code will ever exist somewhere.
The problem in my opinion is not in the commercial use of the code, but in the lack of #copyleft.
#GPL is often enough to keep vultures like facebook and google away from your projects, unless they manage to negotiate with the single contributors, which is almost never the case.
"Open Source is the problem, Free Software is the solution" [cit.]