[Standards] OMEMO and Olm

Daniel Gultsch daniel at gultsch.de
Sat May 27 16:22:48 UTC 2017


2017-05-27 17:10 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>:
> On 27 May 2017 at 16:00, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
>> 2017-05-27 16:49 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>:
>>> On 27 May 2017 at 15:48, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
>>>> 2017-05-27 16:41 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>:
>>>>> You think Zom will introduce OMEMO? I seriously doubt that's possible
>>>>> in the current state of affairs.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not in contact with with the Zom developers. I don't know what
>>>> their plans are. I just noticed there is a branch [1] and some issues
>>>> on their issue tracker indicate that there is at least basic support
>>>> for OMEMO (in that branch)
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>> [1]: https://github.com/zom/Zom-Android/tree/dev_omemo
>>>
>>> Well, that's precisely the kind of legal problem Remko predicted
>>> earlier, then, surely?
>>
>> INAL. I presume when ever they distribute Zom w/ OMEMO it'll
>> automatically be GPLv3?
>>
>
> I appreciate these issues do not affect you, but you could at least
> accept they're relevant for others. There was an entire thread about
> this earlier.

We were talking about about Zom in particular. And I made it very
clear that I haven't talked to the developers. I merely made the
observation that they have a branch with OMEMO support. Thus I
*assumed* it doesn't affect *them* meaning they seem to fine with the
re-licensing.

I'm fully aware that this doesn't work for everyone especially for
(but not limited to) closed source products.

In fact I have customers who are using a variant of libolm exactly for
that reason.


More information about the Standards mailing list