It is, however, interesting on principle, since it only allows the use by criminals (implicitly), and not by law enforcement. By then making the tool very impractical to use, we can punish bad actors still.
(I think there was a honeypot operation to this effect, something with feds making up a "secure encrypted phone" and then acquiring Cartels as a major customer.)
(On the off chance I just burned this very similar operation: dear feds, I'm so sorry!)
So presumably, by the extension of your argument, average person using Reticulum is either ("implicitly") a criminal or breaking the licence / ToS.
Where do you see it?
> Too bad the Zen of Reticulum is against freedom. Specifically freedom 0: the freedom to use the software for any purpose. Its restrictions preventing it "from being used in systems designed to harm humans" [...]
So if you're a lawful good human-harming person, you are prohibited from using Reticulum by this Zen document.
If, however, you're an unlawful kind of human-harming person, then you likely don't feel the pressure from the Zen document to stop using Reticulum.
(And surely you can't flip the logic like you did right there: "engineers are implicitly allowed to use X" doesn't convert to "users of X are implicitly engineers".)
So no, I'm saying that of all users intending to cause humans harm with this tech, only criminals are permitted (or at least, aren't meaningfully restricted) to use Reticulum. Only in this niche case.
I think that's the Anom phones - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trojan_Shield
>Not willing to violate the license of a software package.