zlacker

[parent] [thread] 11 comments
1. acrisp+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-04-07 18:38:47
Until they decide to go silent for another 11 months
replies(1): >>kreetx+Rx
2. kreetx+Rx[view] [source] 2021-04-07 20:58:11
>>acrisp+(OP)
Most of the popular chat-app space is not open source. What is it with Signal that people feel entitled to condemn it for not having the latest commits on github?
replies(2): >>neolog+4H >>acrisp+DC1
◧◩
3. neolog+4H[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-04-07 21:41:22
>>kreetx+Rx
What is it with chat apps that people don't condemn them for being closed source? Imagine if GCC hid their changes for a year.
replies(1): >>kreetx+E41
◧◩◪
4. kreetx+E41[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-04-07 23:56:48
>>neolog+4H
Sure, it would be nice if any software were open source, but that you are entitled for it? Funny attitude.
replies(1): >>neolog+A71
◧◩◪◨
5. neolog+A71[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-04-08 00:16:24
>>kreetx+E41
There's plenty of writing on that issue [1]. It makes a lot of sense to think of people being actually entitled to certain rights, especially in domains with network effects.

Btw, the Signal Foundation is a non-profit organization that benefits from community goodwill based on an open-source ethos. So people are critical when its software is closed source.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

replies(2): >>rOOb85+Tq1 >>kreetx+682
◧◩◪◨⬒
6. rOOb85+Tq1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-04-08 02:54:19
>>neolog+A71
...it's software is open source.
replies(1): >>neolog+ss1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
7. neolog+ss1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-04-08 03:08:58
>>rOOb85+Tq1
The reason is that this story is on HN is that the source was previously missing.
◧◩
8. acrisp+DC1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-04-08 05:14:27
>>kreetx+Rx
By silent, I don't just mean they held back commits. They were evasive about it the entire time. They could have explained and chose not to.

They don't owe me anything but I think it's a shame that the leading open source messenger app does such a poor job of communicating with its users and the larger open source community.

◧◩◪◨⬒
9. kreetx+682[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-04-08 10:53:35
>>neolog+A71
I don't think a piece on gnu.org qualifies as "plenty of writing" and for sure doesn't count as basis for what you are entitled for :).
replies(1): >>neolog+Uv3
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
10. neolog+Uv3[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-04-08 19:15:39
>>kreetx+682
> I don't think a piece on gnu.org qualifies as "plenty of writing"

There are some links there to other pieces if you want to read more about it.

> for sure doesn't count as basis for what you are entitled for

I'm not claiming that moral authority flows from the Gnu brand; rather, they provide some information and reasoning which people can use to come to their own conclusions.

replies(1): >>kreetx+UG3
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
11. kreetx+UG3[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-04-08 20:20:04
>>neolog+Uv3
Most if not all of the links point to themselves..

It's ok to think that in an ideal world it would be like that, but argumenting as if you were entitled to the source because of it doesn't seem that it will persuade others. After all, if you aren't empathetic to the reality, how would you expect others be empathetic to you?

replies(1): >>neolog+Tq4
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
12. neolog+Tq4[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-04-09 02:31:38
>>kreetx+UG3
The reality is pretty diverse. Plenty of people use mostly or only free software. I certainly do.
[go to top]