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? 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. [1] several other apps claim to have implemented the Signal Protocol. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
