It's a little depressing Moxie believes federated protocols can't compete with unfederated/proprietary ones. I don't like the idea of all future innovation taking place in the Slacks and WhatsApps rather than the IRCs and SMTPs.

Are there any recent counter examples of successful federated protocols?

It would be an interesting thought experiment to design a protocol that started with the basic features of IRC and incrementally layered on new features in backwards compatible / gracefully degrading ways until you arrived at Slack. Of course it would be a lot easier with the benefit of hindsight than if you started in the 1980s.

That thought experiment lives today in the form of Matrix.org :)

Definitely check out https://matrix.org/ @tlrobinson!

It's all that and more. Not only does it have the basic features of XMPP+IRC (and others), but it also federates/bridges with those existing open standards! Plus supports WebRTC signalling and of course end-to-end 1:1 & group encryption (Olm/MegOlm).

There's a range of client, server and library options. Vector.IM (with web, iOS and Android clients) is a good place for many to start and you can try on an existing service. Then if you want, just fire up your own server and it'll federate with the rest.

If you only needed pure XMPP, Conversations.IM is superb too.

I think this blog post [0] is more of a direct response to the discussion in that thread.

[0] https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/

This kind of comment is not allowed on Hacker News. If you can't express yourself without a personal attack, please don't express yourself.

I think it seems clear that, in some circles, I have a number of unpopular opinions around federation, third party clients, app distribution, and what technologies are necessary or appropriate for large scale adoption of end to end encryption in today's world.

However, I'd be interested to hear more about why you think those unpopular opinions constitute "mistreatment." Am I guilty of something more than articulating my preferences and explaining our rationale for the decisions that we've made with our project?

It seems to me that your choice to open source the code without also saying "sure, we'll just give away everything else however people who want to use the open source want us to" is resulting in people falling into the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics trap ( https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth... ). Shortest quote that summarises the article's point: "There wouldn’t be any scathing editorials if BBH Labs had just chosen to do nothing – but they did something helpful-but-not-maximally-helpful, and thus are open to judgment."

Looking at the LibreSignal thread, you appear to be replying with the sort of snippy tone that I tend to end up using when I'm explaining the same damn thing for the Nth time to an audience that probably isn't going to listen. The only thing I've found that works for me to avoid ending up doing that is to summarise the explanation into (for IRC channels specifically) a factoid entry in an infobot or (for longer things and other distribution means) a blog post.

Or, alternatively, (1) people are being entitled as fuck because, well, people are people, (2) you might wish to consider writing up a blog post explaining the reasons for all of said opinions and then just post a link to it, since this will probably achieve just as much as trying to argue and will be far less bloody annoying for you, (3) IMO you're not guilty of anything and "carry on doing exactly how you're already doing" is not a choice I personally can see any good reason to fault you for.

(random free opinions of this HN commenter worth exactly what you paid, of course ;)

It's your code. Anyone who thinks differently can go pound sand.

In general I'd prefer to see security relate libraries LGPL licensed to encourage their widespread adoption.

The GPL is an amazing license to gag developers while looking like a good person in the process. Not saying that is happening here but I have seen this before where questionable motivations where the driving force behind the license choice.

The GPL is an amazing license to prevent devs from profiting off others' work without also providing access to their own. Some might call that a "gag" because they're prevented from using the code without opening their own code as well, so it's closed to them for all practical purposes.

Is that the kind of gag that you're talking about, or did you mean something different?

Reminds me of a /. sig, with which I agreed very much (paraphrased):

  If you don't like my software licensed under the GPL write your own damn software.

> Is that the kind of gag that you're talking about, or did you mean something different?

I meant that the GPL as a license can be used to gag others while keeping a positive image as a person yourself. There are many licenses that can be used like this (the CDDL in particular was used for that purpose). That in itself has nothing to do with the GPL, more that you as a copyright holder have the ability to do things that are not available for others.

I don't understand what you mean by "gag" and "positive image".

The GPL is a very good license, because it has one benefit that almost all other licenses don't: it restricts use of your code to free software. If you care about software freedom, or want to live in a world where proprietary software is a thing of the past, then that should be reason enough to use it. Positive image is not a clause in the GPL, so I really don't know what you mean.

How does the GPL gag developers?

The GPL does not but it can be used as a vehicle that does.

Can you provide a concrete example? I've seen three messages from you, and I still have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you have an example of what you mean by "gag", in context of copyright?

Do you have an example of how GPL or other licenses allows you to do something negative while maintaining a positive image?

Not OP, but I think I get what they're trying to say.

The GPL requires others to follow its terms, because that's the only license of the code that's available to them. There is no clause of the GPL or any software license that I'm aware of that prevents you from doing whatever you want with your own code under different terms.

Therefore, you can do something negative (sell software that uses changes to GPL'd code without providing those sources to others when they ask for it), while maintaining a positive image ("look, I license my code under the GPL because I care about software freedom").

You can see this happening in practice with software that has a "community" edition available under the GPL, but a paid version that's not GPL'd. The holder of the copyright gets to profit off of other people's well meaning contributions (which almost certainly will have had their copyright assigned to the original copyright holder), but the people who contributed don't get the benefit of the copyright holder's changes to that code that are only available to paid customers.

You can argue that those contributors made their contributions knowing that would happen, but the fact that it is possible somewhat undermines the entire point of the free software movement.

Those are some good points. Thank you for taking the time to answer!