2017-05-27 17:10 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <[email protected]>: > On 27 May 2017 at 16:00, Daniel Gultsch <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2017-05-27 16:49 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <[email protected]>: >>> On 27 May 2017 at 15:48, Daniel Gultsch <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> 2017-05-27 16:41 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <[email protected]>: >>>>> You think Zom will introduce OMEMO? I seriously doubt that's possible >>>>> in the current state of affairs. >>>> >>>> I'm not in contact with with the Zom developers. I don't know what >>>> their plans are. I just noticed there is a branch [1] and some issues >>>> on their issue tracker indicate that there is at least basic support >>>> for OMEMO (in that branch) >>>> >>>> cheers >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> [1]: https://github.com/zom/Zom-Android/tree/dev_omemo >>> >>> Well, that's precisely the kind of legal problem Remko predicted >>> earlier, then, surely? >> >> INAL. I presume when ever they distribute Zom w/ OMEMO it'll >> automatically be GPLv3? >> > > I appreciate these issues do not affect you, but you could at least > accept they're relevant for others. There was an entire thread about > this earlier.
We were talking about about Zom in particular. And I made it very clear that I haven't talked to the developers. I merely made the observation that they have a branch with OMEMO support. Thus I *assumed* it doesn't affect *them* meaning they seem to fine with the re-licensing. I'm fully aware that this doesn't work for everyone especially for (but not limited to) closed source products. In fact I have customers who are using a variant of libolm exactly for that reason. _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
