[Standards] OMEMO and Olm
flo at geekplace.eu
Thu May 25 09:22:43 UTC 2017
On 25.05.2017 11:04, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 25 May 2017, at 10:01, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:
>> On 25.05.2017 10:56, Dave Cridland wrote:
>>> On 25 May 2017 at 08:26, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:
>>>> On 25.05.2017 08:04, Remko Tronçon wrote:
>>>>> On 24 May 2017 at 22:55, Andreas Straub <andy at strb.org
>>>>> <mailto:andy at strb.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> I just don't see the major implementations switching over any time soon
>>>>> I have serious doubts that at least one of them won't have to do *some*
>>>>> significant work to get rid of the libsignal dependency to be legally in
>>>>> order, which will mean implementing the ratchet and XEdDSA itself
>>>>> (unless a library emerges that implements this all from scratch).
>>>> Why do you think the existing implementations using libsignal are not
>>>> legally in order?
>>> I think Smack, while legally in order, is in trouble here.
>> Thanks Dave, but Remko's statement reads like *every* OMEMO
>> implementation based on libsignal is legally not in order.
> It seems to me fairly unambiguous that “At least one” isn’t equal to “every” (except in the case where there is only one).
He doubts that at least one of them *won't* have to do some work to get
rid of libsignal and become legally in order.
Which in turn means that he thinks every implementation has to do some
work to become legally in order.
But maybe I misinterpret that sentence. It doesn't really matter as long
as we agree that *every* OMEMO implementation using libsignal which
follows the licensing terms is legally in order. :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 642 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Standards