[finnn]

I said it's not enforced.

I cannot speak for moxie or Signal. I can speak for my own experiences, as the maintainer of a fork of signal-cli, and I have never seen any evidence that Signal's servers block signal-cli or my fork. I don't know about signal-cli but my fork clearly identifies itself in the user agent (and another field called the "signal agent") to the server. If they wanted to block me they could.

edit: signal-cli also sets a user agent clearly identifies itself: https://github.com/AsamK/signal-cli/blob/05abb3f9f6294677d2d...

[jchw]

Not equally enforced is the phrase you probably want, since the linked thread contains evidence of multiple instances of enforcement...

[3np]

Can you link to one or two? I read through most and haven’t seen any, but I may have missed it.

[jchw]

https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco... ?

[aj3]

> If you think running servers is difficult and expensive (you're right), ask yourself why you feel entitled for us to run them for your product.

I don't get Moxie's stance. Aren't they running Signal as a public service? This sentence reads as if LibreSignal would be stealing profits from Signal by using later's servers. But there is no intention to raise profits / add monetization, is there?

[GuB-42]

MOB (MobileCoin) looks like an attempt at monetization, a bit shady if you ask me.

Other than monetization, I get Moxie stance, even though I disagree. If you control both the server and the client and don't allow alternative clients and federation, it is easier to make changes, keep focus, and you don't have to deal with complains from users with crappy clients.

Signal is also security and privacy-focused, and Moxie presumably want to keep that image. What if some forks throw away that aspect, for example by storing plain text message in "the cloud". Personally, I actually don't care that much about the privacy/security aspect of Signal, as weird as it may sound, for me, Signal is just a nice, no nonsense messenger with security as a bonus and I would welcome a fork that makes a convenience trade off. But these less secure clients may undermine trust for those who really see it as a primary reason.

[3np]

Again, can you point to a specific comment in that thread indicating enforcement? I see none.

[jchw]

Yes, the one that I linked, and then this one:

https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...

A Google Play app was taken down: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.privatecha...

A GitHub repo was removed: https://github.com/WizDom13/SignalPlus-Android

After reviewing the thread, I think that it may just be that we have had a genuine misunderstanding over the meaning of the word enforcement due to context. moxie has made it clear that third party clients are not allowed to use OWS servers, and enforced it by having such clients removed from the internet. I feel that counts as 'enforcement' although upon re-reading the thread I can see why this happened. I am not aware of enforcement on the server-side although this is certainly enough to dissuade me from pursuing third-party Signal clients.

edit: reworded after rereading the thread a couple more times

[vvanpo]

It looks to me like those clients were removed due to trademark infringement (having "Signal" in their name), I don't think they were taken down because their code connects to OWS' servers (would GitHub or Google ever honour a takedown request like that?).

[finnn]

Could you point me to some of those instances?