pylapp

pylapp, 5 months ago

It is kind of copyfarleft, so by essence it is it open source according to the OSI definition (which must by the only definition to use), more free / libre according to the FSF definition (which is the only definition also to keep).

pylapp, 5 months ago

If it is your project, no need to get headaches about this. However keep for example the stuff like “Copyright YEAR - your-name” and say it’s under GPL 3 license. But nothing more.

pylapp, 5 months ago

There is one definition of free in FLOSS. The FSF definition.

pylapp, 5 months ago

In software ecosystem indeed there is an issue about the word “free” which can mean “free of charge” or “libre”, that is the reason why the term FOSS should be replaced by FLOSS.

In this very software world, the OSI defined “open source” by 10 conditions. The FSF defined also since eons the term “free / libre” by 4 liberties. These two things are the base of trust and understanding for every one.

For several years capitalist companies try to redefine these words because cannot bear to see that communities dislike or hate how they change the licences of their products (e.g. Elastic with BSL, Mongo with SSPL, Terraform with BSL too). They try to get excuse and fake reasons to be allowed to change the definitions but they are not legit at all.

About your example for a “free and anticapitalist” license, it cannot by “free” because one of the four liberties of the “free” definition is not filled.

However this is an interesting point because there is a new family of licences which appeared several years ago: the ethical licenses brought by the Organisation for Ethical Source (ethicalsource.dev) which define the term « ethical source » by 7 principles. You can get more details about the anti-capitalist license here: anticapitalist.software).

In few words, we must keep the OSI, FSF and OES definitions for open source, free and ethical source words because there are meanings, history, facts and fights behind. If they are disturbing for people or if people disagree, they have to create something else. Not change the definition for pure rebranding.

pylapp, 5 months ago

Olvid is the only messaging application today certified by the ANSSI (the French security agency), I doubt this one will be hacked.

pylapp, 5 months ago

Indeed. However we can think the Olvid company, a private company, was very pushy to promote its product and made people think the other apps are worse. In fact it seems Olvid, compared to Signal, encrypt metadata and does not rely on contacts nor identity server. And because it’s a French app, “sovereignty matters” (even of ministers use Microsoft Office solutions 🤡)

pylapp, 5 months ago

Servers are private, so we can conclude anything…

pylapp, 5 months ago

A matter of time, resources, knowledge, tools, energy, intels. With the ANSSI credit, good luck.

pylapp, 5 months ago

Don’t know App Manager. What is it? The report from Exodus Privacy is interesting: reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/fr/…/latest/

pylapp, 5 months ago

If your solution had been chosen, it’s lobbying. If not, call corruption 😂

pylapp, 5 months ago

Thank your for sharing 🙂

pylapp, 5 months ago

Same point of view 🙃

pylapp, 6 months ago

You can for example have a look on the online resource below:

www.securemessagingapps.com

It is very interesting with a big comparison grid between plenty of messaging solutions.

pylapp, 6 months ago

Interesting! Do you remember where you got this chart?