@rysiek @ted @gytis @h3artbl33d @PINE64 they can't block it without making their official client nonfree, as a fork would be indistinguishable to the server.

@rysiek @ted @gytis @h3artbl33d @PINE64 you are conflating the developer releasing a fork with the end user using the server. there is nothing in the tos that says i can't use a modified client, and technically there is no way to prevent me.

@rysiek @ted @gytis @h3artbl33d @PINE64 example: bob forks signal-client, is not a signal user. permitted under GPL. alice, a signal user, downloads the fork and uses it. permitted under the service's TOS.

@sneak @ted @gytis @h3artbl33d @PINE64 can you please explain to me again how the GPL and client-server architecture works, as I am clearly unfamiliar with those concepts?

@rysiek @ted @gytis @h3artbl33d @PINE64

then you know both developers and end-users have the right to use their servers regardless of client software

@rysiek @sneak @ted @gytis @h3artbl33d @PINE64 Signal was hostile to a fork of the Android client they developed. They are not hostile to independently developed clients. https://github.com/signalapp/libsignal-client/issues/152

@be @rysiek @ted @gytis @h3artbl33d @PINE64

most upstreams that get forked in open source are hostile and/or unreasonable. that's why people fork them.

upstream being hostile to forks is not a signal thing. fork away.

@sneak @be @rysiek @ted @gytis @PINE64 Unfortunately, that is true. I can name dozens of examples where hostility and/or rogue behaviour against forks happened. It's sad.