Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

They don’t and can’t disallow third party clients. The client is GPL.


https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...

> If you think running servers is difficult and expensive (you're right), ask yourself why you feel entitled for us to run them for your product.


The license in the repo says otherwise, and the license is what governs your use and modification and redistribution of the client app, not their indignation.

Forks are a natural consequence of releasing free software. This is the life they chose.

Also, free software isn’t a product.

The ToS is the only thing that governs end users connecting to the API, and it doesn’t deny end users the use of third party clients. Also, even if it did, that would be insane, like Google saying you can’t even load google.com when browsing with Firefox. It would be pretty much without precedent on the web, and bonkers.

The GPL is the only thing that governs developers’ use of the client codebase. The GPL of course allows forking and modification and redistribution.

Such forks and redistributions obviously cannot use Signal’s trademarks, so LibreSignal was dumb to do so. Ultimately the feelings of the Signal team don’t matter here - only the license under which they officially released the code. You can’t be more explicit about permitted uses than that.

You can’t be open source but then claim you don’t want forks. It’s one or the other.


> The ToS is the only thing that governs end users connecting to the API, and it doesn’t deny end users the use of third party clients.

"You must not (or assist others to) access, use, modify, distribute, transfer, or exploit our Services in unauthorized manners" [1]

By my reading, the ToS does deny the use of third party clients. Someone could try to argue that a third party is using the services in the same manner as the authorized first party client, therefore it doesn't break the ToS; but since the company's leadership have said that's not OK (causing the mentioned client to stop being updated), I'd assume that if that argument worked in court, they'd just change the ToS to be more explicit about stopping it.

[1] https://signal.org/legal/


Who would you take to court? LibreSignal is simply distributing software, it's the users who are potentially breaking Signal's ToS by connecting to their servers using unauthorized clients.

This is like attempting to sue qBittorrent for copyright infringement.


Wow, I never really followed Signal's anti-federation drama that closely, but reading that thread is nuts. The LibreSignal folks just don't get it, despite Moxie's clear (at least to me) and plain language. The entitlement there is mind-boggling.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: