On 25 May 2017, at 10:22, Florian Schmaus <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 25.05.2017 11:04, Kevin Smith wrote: >> On 25 May 2017, at 10:01, Florian Schmaus <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 25.05.2017 10:56, Dave Cridland wrote: >>>> On 25 May 2017 at 08:26, Florian Schmaus <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> On 25.05.2017 08:04, Remko Tronçon wrote: >>>>>> On 24 May 2017 at 22:55, Andreas Straub <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>> I just don't see the major implementations switching over any time soon >>>>>> >>>>>> I have serious doubts that at least one of them won't have to do *some* >>>>>> significant work to get rid of the libsignal dependency to be legally in >>>>>> order, which will mean implementing the ratchet and XEdDSA itself >>>>>> (unless a library emerges that implements this all from scratch). >>>>> >>>>> Why do you think the existing implementations using libsignal are not >>>>> legally in order? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think Smack, while legally in order, is in trouble here. >>> >>> Thanks Dave, but Remko's statement reads like *every* OMEMO >>> implementation based on libsignal is legally not in order. >> >> It seems to me fairly unambiguous that “At least one” isn’t equal to “every” >> (except in the case where there is only one). > > He doubts that at least one of them *won't* have to do some work to get > rid of libsignal and become legally in order. > > Which in turn means that he thinks every implementation has to do some > work to become legally in order.
Doubts that at least one won’t -> Suspects that at least one will. It’s just English being weird again. > But maybe I misinterpret that sentence. Yep, nothing to see, move along. /K _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
