[Standards] OMEMO and Olm

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Thu May 25 09:31:35 UTC 2017


On 25 May 2017, at 10:22, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Doubts that at least one won’t
->
Suspects that at least one will.

It’s just English being weird again.

> But maybe I misinterpret that sentence.

Yep, nothing to see, move along.

/K



More information about the Standards mailing list