> No. Everyone can use Signal technology for free in their own products. They are not selling it to anyone.
Everyone can use the AGPL version but they also sell proprietary versions to customers.
> I don’t know what to say but stuff like this makes me kinda angry.
You are angry because I read official Signal announcements and documents that clearly says that Signal / Open Whisper Foundation is working with commercial partners?
> You read about moxie helping implement their encryption in WhatsApp at one point
“To amplify the impact and scope of private communication, we also collaborate with other popular messaging apps like WhatsApp, Google Allo, and now Facebook Messenger to help integrate Signal Protocol into those products.” – https://signal.org/blog/facebook-messenger/
“In collaboration with Signal, Microsoft is introducing a Private Conversations feature in Skype, powered by Signal Protocol.” –https://signal.org/blog/skype-partnership/
Those commercial partners don’t need to comply with the AGPL and release their entire app source code under AGPL as well because: “You hereby grant to Open Whisper Systems and to recipients of software distributed by Signal Messenger a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works, as well as the right to sublicense and have sublicensed all of the foregoing rights, through multiple tiers of sublicensees, provided that in all cases, Signal Messenger will make Your Contributions available under an OSI-approved open source license.” –https://signal.org/cla/
In case you don’t understand the Signal CLA: While contributions from outside participants will be open sourced, Signal has any right to make and sell proprietary versions.
Non-profit open source foundations with commercial offshoots are completely normal. For a somewhat similar case but without the CLA see Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation.
> Source: wiki. Took me five seconds to google that. Again please don’t spread made up stories, thanks.
Luckily, everything I wrote is the truth. Too bad you only googled for 5 seconds and not 30. Please read linked official Signal documents/announcements carefully and calm down. Thanks.
You shifted your goalposts from “they’re working together so they can’t compete because (somehow) that’d drive them out of business” to “they’ve cooperated with other companies to make their services more secure” and are somehow acting like you were right.
First, isn’t it good for them to work with other companies to improve other services? Doesn’t that help more people?
Second, there’s no fucking way they’d drive Google and Facebook out of business just by offering a superior service. Even if they did, wouldn’t that be good for them? How did you even come to that idea in the first place?
You shifted your goalposts from “they’re working together so they can’t compete because (somehow) that’d drive them out of business” to “they’ve cooperated with other companies to make their services more secure” and are somehow acting like you were right.
I see you’re new to PR speak. If Signal’s commercial cooperation was solely “to improve other services”, all Signal code would be BSD-licensed and available for free to incorporate into any proprietary service, not AGPL + CLA with sublicensing clause. That’s not shifting any goalposts, that’s basic comprehension of PR speak and what such licensing models are for. Signal is working with Facebook/Meta, Microsoft, and in the past also Google when Allo was still a thing.
Second, there’s no fucking way they’d drive Google and Facebook out of business just by offering a superior service. Even if they did, wouldn’t that be good for them? How did you even come to that idea in the first place?
Not Google or Facebook as whole but their chat services. Those companies would have absolutely no incentive to pay Signal money for proprietary licenses. Google Allo is already dead, so Google is not paying any longer, unless Signal tech is incorporated into another product.
Dual-licensing with a CLA is nothing uncommon, neither is a non-profit being attached to a for-profit.
> No. Everyone can use Signal technology for free in their own products. They are not selling it to anyone.
Everyone can use the AGPL version but they also sell proprietary versions to customers.
> I don’t know what to say but stuff like this makes me kinda angry.
You are angry because I read official Signal announcements and documents that clearly says that Signal / Open Whisper Foundation is working with commercial partners?
> You read about moxie helping implement their encryption in WhatsApp at one point
“To amplify the impact and scope of private communication, we also collaborate with other popular messaging apps like WhatsApp, Google Allo, and now Facebook Messenger to help integrate Signal Protocol into those products.” – https://signal.org/blog/facebook-messenger/
“In collaboration with Signal, Microsoft is introducing a Private Conversations feature in Skype, powered by Signal Protocol.” –https://signal.org/blog/skype-partnership/
Those commercial partners don’t need to comply with the AGPL and release their entire app source code under AGPL as well because: “You hereby grant to Open Whisper Systems and to recipients of software distributed by Signal Messenger a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works, as well as the right to sublicense and have sublicensed all of the foregoing rights, through multiple tiers of sublicensees, provided that in all cases, Signal Messenger will make Your Contributions available under an OSI-approved open source license.” –https://signal.org/cla/
In case you don’t understand the Signal CLA: While contributions from outside participants will be open sourced, Signal has any right to make and sell proprietary versions.
Non-profit open source foundations with commercial offshoots are completely normal. For a somewhat similar case but without the CLA see Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation.
> Source: wiki. Took me five seconds to google that. Again please don’t spread made up stories, thanks.
Luckily, everything I wrote is the truth. Too bad you only googled for 5 seconds and not 30. Please read linked official Signal documents/announcements carefully and calm down. Thanks.
You shifted your goalposts from “they’re working together so they can’t compete because (somehow) that’d drive them out of business” to “they’ve cooperated with other companies to make their services more secure” and are somehow acting like you were right.
First, isn’t it good for them to work with other companies to improve other services? Doesn’t that help more people?
Second, there’s no fucking way they’d drive Google and Facebook out of business just by offering a superior service. Even if they did, wouldn’t that be good for them? How did you even come to that idea in the first place?
I see you’re new to PR speak. If Signal’s commercial cooperation was solely “to improve other services”, all Signal code would be BSD-licensed and available for free to incorporate into any proprietary service, not AGPL + CLA with sublicensing clause. That’s not shifting any goalposts, that’s basic comprehension of PR speak and what such licensing models are for. Signal is working with Facebook/Meta, Microsoft, and in the past also Google when Allo was still a thing.
Not Google or Facebook as whole but their chat services. Those companies would have absolutely no incentive to pay Signal money for proprietary licenses. Google Allo is already dead, so Google is not paying any longer, unless Signal tech is incorporated into another product.
Dual-licensing with a CLA is nothing uncommon, neither is a non-profit being attached to a for-profit.