End-to-end encrypted messages need more than libsignal

Re:End-to-end encrypted messages need more than libsignal by threeseed on Saturday December 10, 2022 @02:32AM (#33930747)

FOSS is a very big umbrella that incorporates a wide variety of licenses.

But for me AGPL is not in the spirit of FOSS. It's like you're an unpaid employee of some company who is happy to take your work as long as you don't compete with them.

I understand why AGPL was invented i.e. to prevent AWS ripping your project off but I don't think it's a particularly fair license for individual contributors.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:End-to-end encrypted messages need more than libsignal by shp0ngle on Saturday December 10, 2022 @03:15AM (#33930933)

agpl was definitely not invented to prevent AWS stealing your project.

Affero predates AWS by a lot. It was invented because FSF wants users to be able to see software they are using, but they cannot if it’s a remote server.

It has been used recently as magic anti-AWS wand, but it wasn’t built for that

edit: I am wrong in my dating! Affero is 2007, AWS was launched 2006. But yeah it was never meant as anti-AWS magic wand.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:End-to-end encrypted messages need more than libsignal by reachableceo on Saturday December 10, 2022 @01:25PM (#33935191)

I think you are being pedantic.

Aws , TiVo , whatever . Lots of orgs exploited the contractual logic gap in gpl v2. Aws is the latest in a long list of freeloaders .

I license all my / my startups code under AGPL v3. I don’t offer anyone proprietary license and I don’t ask anyone for CLA.

Defense against freeloaders and also tyrant. My operating agreement for my LLC has language about this stuff. It’s that core to our DNA.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:End-to-end encrypted messages need more than libsignal by tptacek on Saturday December 10, 2022 @02:35AM (#33930765)

At the point where you've defined the FSF out of FOSS, you've departed the ordinary definition of the term.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:End-to-end encrypted messages need more than libsignal by adament on Saturday December 10, 2022 @06:49AM (#33931785)

Interestingly the FSF also requires copyright assignment for contributions to GCC, Emacs and some other GNU software.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:End-to-end encrypted messages need more than libsignal by ediblelint on Saturday December 10, 2022 @07:53AM (#33932181)

The FSF does appear to prefer copyright assignment over DCOs[1], but as of last year GCC contributions only require a DCO[2].

[1] https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/FSF-copyright-handling [2] https://lwn.net/Articles/857791/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:End-to-end encrypted messages need more than libsignal by adament on Sunday December 11, 2022 @04:28AM (#33941644)

That is good news, thank you! And I apologize for spreading incorrect information.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:End-to-end encrypted messages need more than libsignal by hiq on Saturday December 10, 2022 @06:05AM (#33931619)

Aren't you talking about copyright assignments rather than AGPL? You can definitely compete using AGPL, you just have to publish your changes (without necessarily assigning the copyrights), just like the company you're competing with has to if they start using your changes and you haven't assigned your copyrights to them.

[ Parent | on HN ]