[Standards] OMEMO and Olm

Daniel Gultsch daniel at gultsch.de
Thu May 25 13:33:12 UTC 2017


2017-05-25 15:25 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>:
> On 25 May 2017 at 14:15, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
>> 2017-05-25 14:56 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>:
>>> Proponents of XEdDSA (and libsignal) have repeatedly made the claim
>>> that building an XEdDSA implementation is both safe and
>>> straightforward.
>>>
>>> My concern is that nobody has done so.
>>>
>>> There might be perfectly sound reasons for this, such as everyone
>>> working on this has a particular desire for GPL'd output. I'm not sure
>>> that thrills me, but still.
>>
>> I wouldn't say particular desire for GPL but rather 'not being bothered' by GPL.
>> All current OMEMO implementations are 'traditional' open source
>> clients that are either GPL already or can live with a GPL
>> re-licensing when OMEMO is enabled.
>>
>
> Including one Apache-licensed library, though.
>
>> It's perfectly understandable that those clients are picking the path
>> of least resistance and are going with a libsignal-protocol variant.
>> This does not however speak in any form towards the (im)possibility to
>> create an ODR library based on Olm.
>>
>
> I get that this is the path of least resistance for clients that are
> already GPL. Seems really odd for it to be the path of least
> resistance when it involves relicensing.


There is another factor that current implementations that are using
siacs-OMEMO/pre-OMEMO what ever you wanna call it have to use
libsignalprotocol because of the wire format.
This is exactly what ODR is trying to overcome.
And again this is no indication whatsoever regarding the viability of
creating an ODR compatible (w/ XEdDSA) Ratchet based on the olm
library.

cheers
Daniel


More information about the Standards mailing list