On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 01:25:37 +0300 Andrei POPESCU <andreimpope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mi, 23 iun 21, 17:12:07, Michael Grant wrote: > > > Apparently the lines are blurry enough for you to include Signal in that > > > list. > > > > Why? Not blurry at all. Signal is just as closed a system as > > WhatsApp. Maybe more private, but unless you know something I don't, > > Signal doesn't talk to anything other than other Signal. Puppeted > > bridges are not interoperability, as far as I am aware, all users > > still need to be on Signal. > > You seem to be using a completely different meaning of 'proprietary' (no > federation) than I do (closed source software, proprietary protocol that > must be reversed engineered, patents, etc.). Well, Michael's original post that you challenged contrasted: > a standards based system such as mail or the web and a proprietary > system such as facebook, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, etc etc. Would you call Signal "a standards based system?" I understand that the software itself is open source, and the project does publish various "Signal Protocal" libraries, but I'm not sure that's quite enough to call it "standards based." Celejar
