"Centralised messenger Signal has just announced that they are making part of their server software closed source. They claim it is to fight spam, but by using closed source they make it impossible for outsiders to verify the truth. This is worrying.
We really, really need a fully open, decentralised alternative to Signal.
There are several alternatives being developed, please support them:
➡️ @matrix
➡️ @delta
➡️ @briar
➡️ @Jami "
Signal didnt update the source code for the server a whole year, so I would already consider it closed source. Now they are just making it official (but probably still talking about how open they are).
I’m sorry, but you are not correct. They’re updating it.
Yes they started updating it again. But for a whole year they didnt. So what i’m saying is that their development is not open at all, and for me thats one of the most important parts of open source.
Being developed in secret or rejecting community PR’s does not make a project closed source. They may be your requirements for an open source project, but it doesn’t mean the code is closed source.
You’re conflating two separate ideas and spreading misinformation to dissuade people away from a project you personally don’t like. I find that behavior dishonest and think we can do better than that.
I don’t have a stake in this, but here’s my two cents:
It’s highly unlikely they have not updated their backend code for the whole year that their public repo was silent. By the definition of open source, if they made changes to their production codebase and did not disclose them, it means that said codebase was proprietary for that time.
This is especially true for Signal’s server, since it’s licensed under AGPL-3.0. For ANYONE else using the server code, modifying their production server and not disclosing it for a year is a direct violation of the license’s requirements and in the worst case could get them sued or the right to use the codebase revoked. The only reason that Signal themselves can get away with it is because they own the code so they’re not bound by the license terms, but that means they were explicitly acting outside the bounds of their very own open source project.
A strawperson, really?
Ya’ll really don’t give people a break do you? Make one mistake and you have to live with it forever these days. It’s not like they didn’t release the code or threatened to keep it secret.
deleted by creator
That’s my though too. It seems people are jumping to conclusions, but what is the real world alternative other than making public the methods being used so that spammers can just look at the code and operate within documented limits? People are against it, but offering zero alternatives, and instead jumping to “Signal bad, boo!”
Agreed here.