Yet another article that doesn't understand what the Freedom in GPL is about. GPL doesn't give you freedom to use the resources of the project. It doesn't give you freedom to expect gratis work from developers. It doesn't even give you freedom to reuse the name of the project for something else. What it does give you is the freedom to use the given resources as you please, to modify and distribute them however you see fit. The servers of OpenWhisperSystems are not part of these resources, the free time of its developers are not part of these resources.
> One doesn’t need to think hard to see what Merlinspike is advising. He claims democracies suck because of the hardships of human organization and proposes autocracy to manage the world in favour of the helpless people occupying it. Why? Because democracies are inefficient and people don’t want that!
There is a _huge_ difference between a government and a software project: there is a monopoly on the form of government so there can only be one, while a software project can be forked if people disagree with the leadership, and we all know that it has happened many times. The author seems to have discovered that software projects can be run and thrive as authoritarianisms, like Python and Ruby have for so many years: there is one person at the top who has the final word, and they are called BDFL. There are way more projects under this type of management and it works exactly because it is free software: unhappy people can fork the project and propose a new leadership if they want.
It really damages your ethos when you repeatedly spell someone's name wrong. Marlinspike, like the sailor's tool.
That being said, at least this article is addressing issues with the network and not claiming that the code in question is not free.
I do think there's a false equivalence here though. Just because democracy is good for governments doesn't mean it's the right thing for messengers.
Also, it's probably easier to switch to Matrix from signal than it is to emigrate from an authoritarian country.
For the record, I don't think Moxie is right about federation being the cause of the failure for jabber. I set up a free jabber server for my friends, since we were hitting some limitations of group MMS. Exactly one person has logged into their account to use it. I set up the server, created the accounts, and told them which client to use. None of the typical federation downsides should apply. People are lazy and don't care about things until something panics them.
I use Signal (centralised) and Matrix (federated) as my primary messengers. They both have their pros/cons, but this article is a pretty lazy attempt to paint Signal as some anti-competitive "authoritarianism".
The article has two main points:
1) Signal is a centralised platform
2) Signal has prohibited other projects from using Signal's servers.
Addressing point (2) first since it is the most absurd:
Projects like LibreSignal and Wire attempted to build projects (and in the latter case, a product) using Signal's infrastructure. LibreSignal even was using Signal's name in the product.
Simply put, Signal's servers are Signal's. It's their right to prevent other groups from using its own infrastructure for their own products. It's a matter of (a) legal liability (b) assuring users aren't confusing improperly implemented clients as Signal's own.
Fret not, the Signal server implementation is up on GitHub. Run your own server, assure that you're not using someone else's copyrighted name as your project name, and you're all set! In fact, that's precisely what Wire managed to do.
Addressing point(1), the reason I use Signal AND Matrix is because while I really dig Matrix, it is just many orders of magnitude easier for me to on-board non-technical friends and family on to Signal and Matrix, and that's almost entirely due to it's centralised nature.
What's more, I frankly do trust Signal's crypto (marginally) more than Matrix's. It's not possible to send unencrypted messages on Signal, I've rarely if ever been asked to verify codes, and I know that Signal doesn't store metadata while Matrix does.
Matrix is wonderful, I use it all the time, but it's not a panacea. Same goes for Signal, for which I can't self-host, or run inter-app bridges or bots.
So all that to say, this article was pretty lazy and imho exceptionally unconvincing.
I just want to add the link to the apk, which is publicly available from signal website. There is no need to go through the play store for installation.
I fully agree with this, although I see it as his opinion and I have another one.
But for normal users I currently recommend Telegram as an alternative instead of Signal. There is reason for criticism as well, but Signals behavior doesn't align enough with the future I see for software.
> One doesn’t need to think hard to see what Merlinspike is advising. He claims democracies suck because of the hardships of human organization and proposes autocracy to manage the world in favour of the helpless people occupying it. Why? Because democracies are inefficient and people don’t want that!
There is a _huge_ difference between a government and a software project: there is a monopoly on the form of government so there can only be one, while a software project can be forked if people disagree with the leadership, and we all know that it has happened many times. The author seems to have discovered that software projects can be run and thrive as authoritarianisms, like Python and Ruby have for so many years: there is one person at the top who has the final word, and they are called BDFL. There are way more projects under this type of management and it works exactly because it is free software: unhappy people can fork the project and propose a new leadership if they want.