• TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        103
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        It means it can’t ever become proprietary closed-source software (not without a major lawsuit).

        • ambitiousslab@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          56
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month 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@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 month 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.]

            Alternatively:

            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. :)

            • Vivian (they/them)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              The way I understand it is that they can relicense it and then publish it if they want, but the GPL would still fully apply to the previous versions.

              The first question you cited seems to refer to any different organisation/individual making changes to the source code. And the second seems to refer to revoking the GPL for an already released version, which they would of course not be allowed to do.

              This would make sense as ownership of the copyright would supersede a license.

              • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                “releasing the modified version to the public” would cover them re-closing the source and then subsequently releasing that newly closed source, so they can’t relicense it and then release the built version of the code.

                At least not easily, this is where court history would likely need to be visited because the way it’s worded the interpretability of “modified” in this context would need to be examined.

                • myliltoehurts@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Not a lawyer but in the scenario where proton closed the source but kept offering the build, even if gpl3 still applies since they’re the only copyright holder (no contributions) it’d only give them grounds to sue themselves?

                  From gnu.org:

                  The GNU licenses are copyright licenses; free licenses in general are based on copyright. In most countries only the copyright holders are legally empowered to act against violations.

            • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 month 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@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 month 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.

      • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s pretty much not reversible and the code is free to use, modify, and distribute forever. And if you do modify it you also must make those changes open source.

        Very good news

      • Mwa@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month 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@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month 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@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month 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

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Why the but? GPL 3 is the correct license to use for open source projects to ensure they stay open and corps don’t freeload on them.

      • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        English isn’t my first language. I share your opinion regarding the license. Which connector would you use instead of “but” to indicate that you succeeded in your efforts even though it was harder you thought it would be?

        • 0ops@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 month ago

          English is my only language, and yours looks fine to me. I thought it was pretty clear from the first comment that the “but” indicated success despite difficulties, and as you clarified that’s exactly what you meant.

          • P4ulin_Kbana
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Why not having a L2 maybe a L3? People from the US should feel like they’re missing out in our modern world!

        • delirious_owl@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          “and”

          If you study non violent communication, folks will say to avoid using “I agree with you, but”. Because as soon as you say " but ", people get defensive and stop listening to you.

          Whenever possible, replace “but” with “and” if the sentence still has the same meaning

          • pooberbee (any)@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 month ago

            This was not a case of “I agree with you, but…”, though. “But” is perfectly appropriate here to contrast between the first statement and the second.

  • Lupec@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    114
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Very nice, I do hope that helps us finally get a Linux version sometime soon lol

    • Toribor@corndog.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 month ago

      Feels like this would be a bigger win for them than a lot of other companies. The people interested in privacy focused alternative to the Google/Microsoft/Apple offerings probably have a lot of overlap with Linux users.

      • Lupec@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        It does, yeah. Still, having access to the official client too would be nice.

  • Mwa@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    sad its on github but am not complaining much

  • franiis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 month ago

    Will they be now on FDroid? I think only one Proton app is there and it’s a little bit sad.

    • piracysails@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 month ago

      Proton VPN and proton pass

      IRRC they even removed all telemetry from pass but not VPN.

      They should definitely push drive and calendar there too.

          • utopiah@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            I’m curious, any advice on that? How does one do “good” telemetry? I’m the first to complain about Microsoft, Apple, (even worst) Google, Meta and now OpenAI collecting data to sell me stuff… but it’s true that also some data is needed to get some kind of introspection in terms of usage. Developers need to understand what is actually happening with the software they develop.

            Now I’m wondering specifically about 2 side :

            • how to do the data collection correctly (e.g local only, only send on crash, only send without PII, store only aggregate)
            • how to get informed consent from users (e.g off by default, UX that supports understanding of why it’s done and how)

            I’m genuinely glad that the mindset around privacy have changed since the last few years but I’m wondering how, when it’s a genuinely positive good case (to truly make better products), to do it.

            • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Your app has a button on its front page. No one ever presses that button. With good telemetry, you will know this and remove the button. The only thing you need to know is how many times each user opens the app and how many times they tapped that button. Crash reports can include the causes of errors. Without this data the app might have that unused button there forever and crash everytime anyone taps the donate button and you wouldnt know why you arent getting any dontaions.

              Telemetry is usually collected on non metered networks. Usually it is opt-out by default, set by the user in the apps settings. Personally, I’d inform the user of this and let them decice on first startup.

  • bruhSoulz@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month 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 😑

  • Rose56@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    I started with their email services many years ago, and today I user their email + free calendar. To be true, they went too much far with all these apps, but as long as it works for them thats fine.

  • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    I want to make the jump from Google apps but I can’t because I use GCal heavily and Proton Calendar doesn’t (yet) sync to GCal. I can enter in something in GCal and it’ll appear in Proton Calendar, but I can’t enter in something in Proton Calendar and it shows up in GCal. Hopefully they add that soon.

    • cyberwolfie@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      If you want to move away from Google apps, why keep using Google Calendar? Maybe someone has a suggestion for a way to work with it if you say what your continued use case for it is and what kind of limitations you are working with.

  • JustMarkov@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 month ago

    Wow, so cool. And Mobile Calendar source code is still unreleased, right?

    • macniel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah I don’t understand why they don’t have a codeberg or similar that they host themselves.

      • Tja@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month 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@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          There’s a difference between handing something to someone and leaving it somewhere they happen to be able to take it from.

          • Tja@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            There’s nothing in GPL that would forbid it. Only distribution without code publication is forbidden.

            • macniel@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month 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.