Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Jo, 24 iun 21, 14:13:42, Dan Ritter wrote: > > > > At the other end is anything where you can't use a client or a > > server that isn't produced/managed by the central authority. > > Despite Signal making some of their source available, you can't > > write your own Signal client and have it talk to their official > > servers. > > Sure, and I don't remember disputing this. > > But let's not conflate the Signal software (client, server, etc.), the > Signal protocol and the Signal *service*. > > Could you elaborate on why in your opinion an entity providing a service > should automatically accept connections from third-party clients and/or > federate with other service providers? > > https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issuecomment-217231557 > > (as is implied from that, Signal did at some point federate)
Sure. In my opinion, a communication service that does not federate with open-source clients and servers is a proprietary service, even if it is free-gratis to use. The owner of that service can do whatever they want, and nothing short of government regulation can or will prevent them. Monopolies are always bad; it's just that sometimes they are economically worth having when very tightly regulated. That's an opinion. > Or could you explain why Matrix (which as far as I know is already both > federated and open to any client) is not enough? Not enough for what? The primary issue I have with Matrix is that there's too much concentration of servers under the control of matrix.org - but I think that they believe that too, and that this will be rectified over the next few years. -dsr-
