[pp.int.general] OTR Chatting en mass?
ningunotro at hotmail.com
Sat Jul 13 01:35:17 CEST 2013
As you have mentioned, the problem is they need security through obscurity.
Whether the client side applications are free software or not does not really matter if they have decided that the server side is going to be a business secret and a service only they are going to be able to provide.
That is about as far as it can go being locked in.
By a guy that takes a 10% cut on every amount that is transferred through his Flattr service and wonders why it does not take off stratospherically.
Liberal business that does not care about ethics does not marry well with real activism and trying to change the world for the better.
Liberty is nothing without justice.
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:18:49 +0100
From: j.allnutt at pirateparty.org.uk
To: rms at gnu.org
CC: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] OTR Chatting en mass?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 11/07/2013 21:04, Richard Stallman wrote:
> It also looks like the
client will be open source but not free software.
> What specific facts is that conclusion based on?
Their FAQ. They use the term "open source":
*Will it be Open Source?*
We have all intentions of opening up the source as much as possible
for scrutiny and help! What we really want people to understand
however, is that Open Source in itself does not guarantee any
privacy or safety. It sure helps with transparency, but technology
by itself is not enough. The fundamental benefits of Heml.is will be
the app together with our infrastructure, which is what really makes
the system interesting and secure.
But further down they state:
*Your server only?*
Yes! The way to make the system secure is that we can control the
infrastructure. Distributing to other servers makes it impossible to
give any guarantees about the security. We?ll have audits from
trusted third parties on our platforms regularily[sic], in
cooperation with our community.
This in combination with another answer:
*Will you provide an API and/or allow third party clients?*
At this point we don?t see how that would be possible without
compromising the security, so for now the answer is no.
leads me to conclude that it wouldn't allow the end-user to exercise
her 4 freedoms, specifically #1. Of course they could just be
talking about their back-end, but I struggle to see how they would
exclude forked versions effectively if the client was completely
> It is possible for a
> program to be open source but not free software, but it is
> unusual in an application.
Is there that much of a difference between a program and an
application, other than the packaging?
> A priori, a misunderstanding
> likely. Could this be a misunderstanding?
Perhaps, but I am sceptical.
- -- Jack
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Pirate Parties International - General Talk
pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the pp.international.general