On 30.03.2017 18:02, Dave Cridland wrote: > On 30 March 2017 at 16:00, Florian Schmaus <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 30.03.2017 15:54, Remko Tronçon wrote: >>> On 30 March 2017 at 15:10, Andreas Straub <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> You raise a valid point. I agree that this construction seems >>> cleaner from a purely theoretical standpoint. >>> >>> Permissible implementations of XEdDSA may or may not emerge, but as long >>> as it is not something available, you're taking a risk of making a >>> standard that will never be adopted. >>> … >>> I agree that losing the audit is a downside, but I'm not sure if the >>> alternative is realistic if you want your XEP to take off. >> >> I'm under the impression that OMEMO already took off. So I don't share >> the concern that libsignal being GPL hinders adoption in any way. > > The XSF does open standards, available to any implementer without > restriction, not just GPL software.
Erm? Nobody is disputing that. OMEMO is and will be an open standard based on other open standards [1]. If I understood Remko correctly he is arguing that because there are no non-GPL XEdDSA implementations OMEMO will probably not see any adoption. Which I think is not true as the reality shows. Please correct me if I'm wrong. - Florian 1: XEdDSA is an open standard available at https://whispersystems.org/docs/specifications/xeddsa/, as Daniel pointed out.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
