- cross-posted to:
- opensource@programming.dev
- lealternative@feddit.it
- cross-posted to:
- opensource@programming.dev
- lealternative@feddit.it
- Mwa ( @Mwa@lemm.ee ) English28•20 hours ago
sad its on github but am not complaining much
- EasternLettuce ( @EasternLettuce@lemm.ee ) 14•12 hours ago
Unfortunately GitHub is still where 99% of devs are
- Mwa ( @Mwa@lemm.ee ) English6•12 hours ago
True :(
- acockworkorange ( @acockworkorange@mander.xyz ) 124•1 day ago
It took me going to their GitHub to find out, but it’s GPL 3.
- barkingspiders ( @barkingspiders@infosec.pub ) English43•1 day ago
really appreciate you reporting back, thanks for sharing!
- sunzu2 ( @sunzu2@thebrainbin.org ) 30•1 day ago
What does this mean practically
- Mwa ( @Mwa@lemm.ee ) English10•20 hours ago
gpl v3 you can do pretty much anything but you have to put it the same license but it has like drm protections and Anti-Tivoization and also has some patent protections people find this license too strict
- delirious_owl ( @delirious_owl@discuss.online ) 1•9 hours ago
Its actually more restrictive, in a good way.
You can’t, for example, fork it, make changes, and sell that derivative software without releasing the source code
- Mwa ( @Mwa@lemm.ee ) English1•8 hours ago
yeah but drm is too strict for some people and anti tivozation this is why linux did not do gpl 3.0 or later
- TheImpressiveX ( @TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml ) 61•1 day ago
It means it can’t ever become proprietary closed-source software (not without a major lawsuit).
- ambitiousslab ( @ambitiousslab@lemmy.ml ) English35•1 day ago
Any new open source software is always a net positive.
But, there are a few small caveats to the way they’ve done it (depending on how cynical/cautious you are):
- Because Proton are not accepting contributions, they own all the copyright, so can make the code closed source again if they want to (that wouldn’t affect the already released versions, but future versions)
- They could likely take down any derivative on iOS, since Apple will always take instruction from the copyright holder, for GPL’d code
- Since the builds are not reproducible, there’s no guarantee that the binaries they distribute are built from the source code
- EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted ( @EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English16•22 hours ago
- “Because Proton are not accepting contributions, they own all the copyright, so can make the code closed source again if they want to (that wouldn’t affect the already released versions, but future versions)”
They can’t do that actually. They can close the source, yes, but if they do they can’t then release the new closed-source version to the public.
From the GPL FAQ page:
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program’s users, under the GPL. [Emboldened by me.]
Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?
No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.
- “They could likely take down any derivative on iOS, since Apple will always take instruction from the copyright holder, for GPL’d code”
Does the license prohibit this? Definitely. Could they get away with it? Probably. Though I’m uncertain Proton would go that far. I mean, if they wanted to prevent forks, they wouldn’t have released the source, let alone with the GPL3 license, which requires the right to make modifications (as that’s one of the Four Freedoms).
- “Since the builds are not reproducible, there’s no guarantee that the binaries they distribute are built from the source code”
Technically true, I suppose, though again why they would do that is beyond me. If they didn’t want forks, they likely wouldn’t have allowed forks.
Again, this is all assuming I’m understanding the GPL FAQ page correctly. If I’m wrong, I would welcome someone smarter than me to correct me. :)
- acockworkorange ( @acockworkorange@mander.xyz ) 3•10 hours ago
IANAL, but AFAIK that’s incorrect. If you’re the only copyright holder, you can issue multiple licenses for your work. GPL doesn’t allow you to rescind previous issues, so anyone in possession of your GPL code can still modify and release it under the GPL freely. But it doesn’t prevent you from issuing your own work under a different license.
There isn’t usually much economic sense for most applications to do that because anyone can fork the project and distribute it for free. For Proton, since they still hold the server as closed source, they could simply introduce a breaking protocol change and all the forks would be useless.
- Quail4789 ( @Quail4789@lemmy.ml ) English10•1 day ago
I’d expect free software people to not have the funds to sue corporations. Are there any examples of these major lawsuits I can take a look at? I do remember a telecom company in France was fined quite a large sum but that was reported as a rare incident.
- TheImpressiveX ( @TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml ) 25•1 day ago
Any GPL violations would be reported to the Software Freedom Conservacy, who would go to court on the dev’s behalf.
There was a major lawsuit back in 2022 between the SFC and Vizio, and the SFC won.
- admin ( @admin@lemmy.nowhere.moe ) 8•19 hours ago
Oh it’s open source? where are the serverside repositories then
- unknowing8343 ( @unknowing8343@discuss.tchncs.de ) 31•19 hours ago
The title specifies that it’s the apps that are open source.
- Possibly linux ( @possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip ) English1•11 hours ago
If it is running on the server you have no way of verifying the code or the execution environment.
Theoretically you should now be able to self host proton
- delirious_owl ( @delirious_owl@discuss.online ) 1•9 hours ago
TC says otherwise
- Possibly linux ( @possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip ) English1•7 hours ago
And I call there bluff
- delirious_owl ( @delirious_owl@discuss.online ) 1•4 hours ago
Its not a bluff, its cryptography lol
- Possibly linux ( @possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip ) English1•3 hours ago
Except you don’t control the hardware. If the execution environment is untrusted everything goes out the window
- delirious_owl ( @delirious_owl@discuss.online ) 1•36 minutes ago
Thats literally what TC solves
- Lupec ( @lupec@lemm.ee ) 79•1 day ago
Very nice, I do hope that helps us finally get a Linux version sometime soon lol
- lemmyvore ( @lemmyvore@feddit.nl ) English7•17 hours ago
I believe that rclone already has Proton Drive support.
- Lupec ( @lupec@lemm.ee ) 7•17 hours ago
It does, yeah. Still, having access to the official client too would be nice.
- JustMarkov ( @JustMarkov@lemmy.ml ) English7•22 hours ago
Wow, so cool. And Mobile Calendar source code is still unreleased, right?
- macniel ( @DmMacniel@feddit.org ) 11•18 hours ago
It would have only taken you two clicks to see if the source code of proton calendar for mobile devices is released or not.
spoiler: Yes the code for iOS and android is on GitHub.- JustMarkov ( @JustMarkov@lemmy.ml ) English7•20 hours ago
Can you give a link, then? Because I can only find a web-ui source code.
- bruhSoulz ( @bruhsoulz@lemmy.ml ) English7•23 hours ago
Awesome! Cant wait for their wallet thing to become ready and i hope they have support for many types of coins… also i wish theyd make it so that proton drive work with joplin 😑
- ReversalHatchery ( @ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org ) English4•17 hours ago
they can only support one coin legally. for details check out the Opt Out podcasts’s episode about this topic
- Juniper (she/her) 🫐 ( @june@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 3•11 hours ago
Can you give a summary of why that is?
- CCMan1701A ( @CCMan1701A@startrek.website ) 7•23 hours ago
More copilot training data.
- macniel ( @DmMacniel@feddit.org ) 11•21 hours ago
Yeah I don’t understand why they don’t have a codeberg or similar that they host themselves.
- Tja ( @Tja@programming.dev ) 4•12 hours ago
How would that help? If you release something as GPL code, you cannot prevent it from being used to train a model, no matter where it’s hosted.
- null ( @null@slrpnk.net ) 2•11 hours ago
There’s a difference between handing something to someone and leaving it somewhere they happen to be able to take it from.
- kittenzrulz123 ( @kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 1•11 hours ago
Im personally waiting for a massive lawsuit, legally companies cannot train AI on GPL code (at least I don’t believe so)
- Tja ( @Tja@programming.dev ) 2•10 hours ago
There’s nothing in GPL that would forbid it. Only distribution without code publication is forbidden.
- macniel ( @DmMacniel@feddit.org ) 1•10 hours ago
mhm, and how would the distribution inside an LLM work? Are those code snippets CoPilot et al produce come with dedicated license sections?
And regarding how it would help selfhosting the code: it wouldn’t be on the GITHub servers owned by Microsoft, which owns/operates CoPilot. Its akin to feeding the LLM directly by pushing it to their servers.
- kittenzrulz123 ( @kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 1•10 hours ago
If Al warned about that it would be legal, I don’t believe any AI requires GPL
- Midnight1938 ( @Midnight1938@reddthat.com ) 2•19 hours ago
Yet i cant use more than one free account on the mobile app?
- coolusername ( @coolusername@lemmy.ml ) 2•19 hours ago
proton is CIA
- macniel ( @DmMacniel@feddit.org ) 22•18 hours ago
How would that work? Proton is swiss and CIA is 'murica?
- ShortN0te ( @ShortN0te@lemmy.ml ) 2•13 hours ago
I mean the “Crypto AG” was a thing. So not that unrealistic.
But that Proton is CIA is not that realistic imho but not impossible.