On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 13:14:37 +0300 Andrei POPESCU <andreimpope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jo, 24 iun 21, 14:04:13, 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." > > In the strict definition that would imply there is an RFC or so for the > Signal Protocol. Still the protocol is published and open for anyone to > re-implement[1]. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Protocol > > How is that proprietary? I'm not arguing that it's proprietary, but that it's not "standards based." I agree that the one is not the negation of the other. > The trouble with actually making something a standard is that if later > it turns out something is a really bad idea it is basically impossible > to remove, because now it's part of the standard, and several > implementations have come to rely on that. Fair - but standards have advantages, as well. We can debate whether Signal is better off not using a real standard, but my point remains that it's somewhat dubious to call Signal "standards based." > [1] several other apps claim to have implemented the Signal Protocol. Celejar
