News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:License update by morsch on Monday June 13, 2016 @06:14PM (#11898179)
That's too bad, while I'm happy with Signal, I understand where people using LibreSignal are coming from and it'd be a shame to be unable to talk to them (or install yet another freaking app for it).

It's hard to imagine there are enough LibreSignal users to make a notable impact on the OWS infrastructure in terms of expenses. Though over time, that could change, especially if other forks joined the party, and of course the fallout of shutting them out would only grow over time.

Given OWS's worries about federation and shared standards standing in the way of progress, they might want to avoid third party access simply because it might stop them from changing the server interface. Thirds party clients would be at the mercy of their developers when OWS makes an incompatible change. Caveat emptor, I would say, but again, the problem would only grow.

My personal situation is that the only people I talk to via Signal are nerds; the kind of people who jump ship when a sexier alternative comes up -- like we did when TextSecure/Signal offered good e2e crypto. But that's stopped being a unique feature since WhatsApp also uses the Signal Protocol, which simultaneously made it feel much less pressing to convince non-nerds to switch from WA to Signal.

Re:License update by moxie on Monday June 13, 2016 @06:36PM (#11898311)
> Given OWS's worries about federation and shared standards standing in the way of progress, they might want to avoid third party access simply because it might stop them from changing the server interface.

Totally. Client interoperability as well. For us, the problem is that when a 3rd party client breaks compatibility, that doesn't just affect the users of those 3rd party clients, but the normal Signal users who communicate with them as well.

For example, LibreSignal doesn't support voice calls. When normal Signal users try to call LibreSignal users, it just doesn't work. Most normal Signal users don't care or understand or sympathize with the idea that the person they're trying to call uses some other app which doesn't support voice calls. They'll just think that Signal voice calls are flaky and randomly don't work sometimes.

That's one example, but as development progresses, there will inevitably be more. We're concerned about exactly the same set of problems we found with federation.

> But that's stopped being a unique feature since WhatsApp also uses the Signal Protocol, which simultaneously made it feel much less pressing to convince non-nerds to switch from WA to Signal.

Just to be clear, I think that's great. If people don't feel it's necessary to use Signal because Signal Protocol is "the new normal" in the apps they already use, then I think we've succeeded. Hopefully we'll eventually have the chance to push the envelope forward again and restart that cycle.

Re:License update by jsingleton on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @03:42AM (#11900413)
If the code is GPL then shouldn't WhatsApp need to be open source? Or did they get a different license?

The only thing listed at https://www.whatsapp.com/android/ are some changes to qcom as per the LGPL.

Re:License update by laughinghan on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @04:19AM (#11900572)
I think they're talking about the protocol like "keep around these keys and exchange this", but implemented with proprietary code that doesn't use any of Moxie's C implementation which is indeed GPL.
Re:License update by dlmetcalf on Wednesday June 15, 2016 @11:32AM (#11909925)
Nope, WhatsApp were given a different license. Unlike ChatSecure, who until this most recent change, were locked out from iOS.
Re:License update by dlmetcalf on Wednesday June 15, 2016 @09:24PM (#11913376)
It's good to see.
Re:License update by gpvos on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @06:23AM (#11900964)
> When normal Signal users try to call LibreSignal users, it just doesn't work.

Wouldn't it be possible to give better feedback to the caller in this case, such as the name of the client the callee uses?

I don't use Signal, so I may be missing something here.

Re:License update by moxie on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @11:27AM (#11902598)
Probably, but most people aren't going to understand that LibreSignal is different from Signal. We could try to make things work differently for users calling LibreSignal, but that sets us on a path of having to constantly account for all the various 3rd party clients and their various stages of development or support, which as a team of two developers we unfortunately don't have the resources for.
Re:License update by lorenzhs on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @05:55AM (#11900872)
> My personal situation is that the only people I talk to via Signal are nerds

Nerds, and people who were pressured to install Signal by nerds, indeed cover nearly all of my Signal contacts. But that second group is the larger one, so "nerds" is not an entirely fair characterisation of Signal's user base any more.