

ReMail (YC W09) is now Open Source - vibhavs
http://www.remail.com/blog/posts/170028

======
pchristensen
I'm ok with Google buying and closing cool services as long as they keep open
sourcing them in response to the nerdrage.

------
hannibalhorn
Wicked, now I can work on adding some encryption to the datastore. Most things
on my Touch aren't very sensitive, but the complete copy of my e-mail archive
certainly qualifies and having it just sitting there really scares me.

------
stcredzero
Another really cool thing users of jailbroken iPhones will have that most will
not. Another symptom of how Apple is handicapping themselves by being so
closed.

(EDIT: Okay, fanbois. Know that I have _firsthand experience_ with both
configurations of the iPhone mentioned. I also own other equipment running OS
X.)

~~~
JoshTriplett
Nothing stops someone else from pushing reMail back into the app store.
(Except, of course, the other ten someone elses doing the same thing.)

But this seems like a better outcome than previously, when the app just died
with no recourse.

~~~
stcredzero
You can have an Open Source app in the App Store? I know GPL is out. I didn't
know other licenses were kosher.

~~~
jrockway
Only GPLv3. Everything else is fine; those licenses say that as long as you
get the source code, the licensing obligations have been met. Being able to
compile and run that source code is something only the GPLv3 guarantees.

(And in the day and age of locked hardware, I think the GPLv3 is the only sane
license as a result. Free Software dies if nobody can actually run it.)

~~~
blasdel
You can compile and run the source code, you just can't do so on an iPhone
without buying a key. Free Software dies if nobody gives a shit about it,
running it on the original hardware is completely irrelevant.

I'm sorry but the GPLv3 (and worse, the AGPL) are the shittiest passive-
aggressive 'Free' software licenses yet written. They're just clickwrap EULAs,
since you can't enforce the restrictions they add on top of the GPLv2 via
copyright law.

It's funny to see the same people who wanked long and hard of restrictions on
crypto turn around and try to impose their own restrictions on the same by
ideological fiat.

~~~
jrockway
Is preventing someone from taking away your freedom taking away their freedom?
Technically yes. But it's a worthwhile "loss".

 _They're just clickwrap EULAs, since you can't enforce the restrictions they
add on top of the GPLv2 via copyright law._

Sure you can. Under copyright law, you can't distribute copyrighted code
without permission. You also can't distribute derived works; binaries produced
by your compiler. The GPLv3 grants everyone permission to copy, compile, and
redistribute, as long as they give others the same permission, promise not to
sue the people they give the code to, and promise not to ship the code on
hardware that can't run modified versions of the code. That fits perfectly
into the framework of copyright law. If you don't like the conditions of the
GPLv3, you fall back to copyright law -- you can't distribute binaries or
modified versions at all.

EULAs rely on a much shadier principle; that you "redistribute" a copyrighted
work when you copy it from your disk into memory. Copyright law says, the
lawyers reckon, that you can't make that copy unless you are given permission.
You are given permission by following the EULA.

You can see that this is not quite the same as the GPL because of the scope.
EULAs say copying is how your computer runs programs. The GPL says copying is
making a copy for your friend. Much more solid.

Anyway, if you don't like software licenses, don't use one. I like the GPL,
though, because I want people to give me back what I gave them. Nice people
will do that anyway, but not everyone is nice. So the GPL clearly spells out
their obligations to me, and lets them make an informed decision as to whether
or not they want to modify and redistribute my software. The nice people
follow the rules anyway, so the GPL makes no difference to them.

Are you a nice person?

~~~
blasdel
The GPLv2 operates solely within copyright law — it hinges solely on
distribution of the work itself and nothing else. The GPLv3 gets into
contract-like territory, with the patent grants and restrictions on hardware.

I do think that the GPLv3's tivoization clause is operating on the same shady
principles as EULAs: if it's not a contract, then they're effectively claiming
that a digital signature is a derivative work!

I'm a nice person that doesn't like the implications the GPLv3 has for Freedom
0.

------
phil
Thanks Gabor (et al)! This is fun to look through.

I'm loling at the BuccheitTimer.

------
tocomment
So what's to stop someone from selling this on the app store? Wouldn't that
defeat the whole purpose of the buyout?

~~~
romland
From the post about the actual acquisition there was, if I recall correctly,
agreed that this was more about the talent rather than the software itself.

And who knows, perhaps they had a future product coming up that Google was
interested in.

Link to previous post: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1132712>

------
niravs
Looks like the Google Code link found in this blog post is broken. Does it
work for anyone else?

<http://code.google.com/p/remail-iphone>

EDIT: It works now! Before it was giving a 502.

~~~
cdibona
We had a problem in one of our data centers and as the service migrated we
threw some 502s. It's okay now, I'm hearing. Sorry bout that!

------
d4ft
Is anyone working on a reMail "clone" for the ipad? Could be a fun little
project.

------
vlod
I don't undersand why google bought them only to open-source it. I get
suspicious when companies are nice. Any ideas?

~~~
samdk
It was almost certainly a talent acquisition. They don't want the product:
they want the people behind it. This is pretty similar to what happened with
Etherpad.

------
ajju
Senor Gabor, Respect.

------
einarvollset
Glad to see the BuccheitTimer made it :)

------
adamsmith
Very cool!!

