On Thu 24 Jun 2021 at 14:04:13 -0400, Celejar wrote: > 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."
Michael was desperately trying to sustain his argument that > email is NOT gmail and let's not forget this. Gmail is standards-based. I expext Signal is too; otherwise it would not work. standrds-bsaed != free. -- Brian.
