

cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions
Great article, BTW
I disagree, the headline is clickbaity and implies that there is some ongoing conflict. The fact that the Fedora flatpak package maintainer pushed an update marking it EOL, with “The Fedora Flatpak build of obs-studio may have limited functionality compared to other sources. Please do not report bugs to the OBS Studio project about this build.” in the end-of-life
metadata field the day before this article was written is not mentioned until the second-to-last sentence of it. (And the OBS maintainer has since said “For the moment, the EOL notice is sufficient enough to distance ourselves from the package that a full rebrand is not necessary at this time, as we would rather you focus efforts on the long-term goal and understand what that is.”)
The article also doesn’t answer lots of questions such as:
Note again that OBS’s official flathub flatpak is also marked EOL currently, due to depending on an EOL runtime. Also, from the discussion here it is clear that simply removing the package (as the OBS dev actually requested) instead of marking it EOL (as they did) would leave current users continuing to use it and unwittingly missing all future updates. (I think that may also be the outcome of marking it EOL too? it seems like flatpak maybe needs to get some way to signal to users that they should uninstall an EOL package at update time, and/or inform them of a different package which replaces one they have installed.)
TLDR: this is all a mess, but, contrary to what the article might lead people to believe, the OBS devs and Fedora devs appear to be working together in good faith to do the best thing for their users. The legal threat (which was just in an issue comment, not sent formally by lawyers) was only made because Fedora was initially non-responsive, but they became responsive prior to this article being written.
deleted by creator
They have to know who the message needs to go to, granted. But they don’t have to know who the message comes from, hence why the sealed sender technique works. The recipient verifies the message via the keys that are exchanged if they have been communicating with that correspondent before or else it is a new message request.
So I don’t see how they can build social graphs if they don’t know who the sender if all messages are, they can only plot recipients which is not enough.
You need to identify yourself to receive your messages, and you send and receive messages from the same IP address, and there are typically not many if any other Signal users sharing the same IP address. So, the cryptography of “sealed sender” is just for show - the metadata privacy remains dependent on them keeping their promise not to correlate your receiving identity with the identities of the people you’re sending to. If you assume that they’ll keep that promise, then the sealed sender cryptography provides no benefit; if they don’t keep the promise, sealed sender doesn’t really help. They outsource the keeping of their promises to Amazon, btw (a major intelligence contractor).
Just in case sealed sender was actually making it inconvenient for the server to know who is talking to who… Signal silently falls back to “unsealed sender” messages if server returns 401 when trying to send “sealed sender” messages, which the server actually does sometimes. As the current lead dev of Signal-for-Android explains: “Sealed sender is not a guarantee, but rather a best-effort sort of thing” so “I don’t think notifying the user of a unsealed send fallback is necessary”.
Given the above, don’t you think the fact that they’ve actually gone to the trouble of building sealed sender at all, which causes many people to espouse the belief you just did (that their cryptographic design renders them incapable of learning the social graph, not to mention learning which edges in the graph are most active, and when) puts them rather squarely in doth protest too much territory? 🤔
there is a thread about the moderation of this thread here.
Thanks for editing, but I deleted your comment anyway because it was still just recommending something that is not open source.
fyi there is a thread here discussing the moderation of this thread.
i bet you’re going to love to hate this wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochrome_painting 😂
because it’s stupid.
you were bamboozled
presumably you find value in some things that some other people think are stupid too; it’s OK
deleted by creator
The good news is that (sometime last year, long after you posted this) futo finally agreed to stop calling their license “open source”; unfortunately there are still some vocal fans of theirs arguing in various forums that it is.
Futo is not open source, as they (now, finally) even admit themselves: https://www.futo.org/about/futo-statement-on-opensource/
See also https://opensource.org/osd and https://opensource.org/authority and compare it to Futo’s licenses; there are (at least) three reasons it doesn’t qualify, can you spot them all? (rhetorical question; don’t @ me)
I am locking this thread to avoid needing to remove misinformation and advocacy from Futo fans who think they should be allowed to redefine a term which there has been consensus about the definition of since before they were born.
even if it’s from its own repository, it is still on F-droid
There is nothing to stop anyone from running their own f-droid repo and distributing non-free software through it, which is what futo is doing.
seems open source enough
This is the definition. Compare it with Futo’s license; it fails to meet both the Open Source Definition and Free Software Definition in several ways. After insisting they could redefine the term for a while (despite the definition’s wide acceptance) and inspiring some of their very vocal fans to promulgate their dishonest argument on their behalf, Futo themselves finally came around and agreed to stop calling their software open source.
you just can’t understand what open-source means
FYI, nearly everyone (including Futo themselves), except for some Futo fans like yourself who haven’t gotten the memo, agrees that this is the definition of “open source” (and Futo’s license obviously does not qualify).
Other comments in this thread suggesting that Futo keyboard is open source have been deleted as offtopic.
What the people here saying this “seems legit” are really saying is that, if the site is providing DRM content which you want to see, then it is indeed using this for its intended purpose (which is to prevent you from recording and/or retransmitting the stream). This is true, but, it doesn’t mean that the site isn’t also collecting your device identifiers and using them for some nefarious privacy-invasive purposes. And of course, they most likely are.
So if I were you I would look for a pirated streaming website instead of running this proprietary software to watch a DRM’d stream. (The pirated site will probably also be privacy-invasive, but they won’t get your device ID… and you’re more likely to be able to block its ads.)
the bald guy in the middle of the photo owns the servers that Signal outsources the keeping of their privacy promises to 🤔
short answer: because nobody flagged that other one. (it is deleted now too.)
re: riseup, is it even possible to use their VPN without an invite code? (i don’t think it is?)
in any case, riseup says clearly that their purpose is “to provide digital self-determination for social movements” - it is not intended for torrenting, even if it might work for it.
feel free to PM me if you want to discuss this further; i am deleting this post too. (at the time of deletion it has 8 upvotes and 33 downvotes, btw.)