> If you think running servers is difficult and expensive (you're right), ask yourself why you feel entitled for us to run them for your product.
I don't get Moxie's stance. Aren't they running Signal as a public service? This sentence reads as if LibreSignal would be stealing profits from Signal by using later's servers. But there is no intention to raise profits / add monetization, is there?
MOB (MobileCoin) looks like an attempt at monetization, a bit shady if you ask me.
Other than monetization, I get Moxie stance, even though I disagree. If you control both the server and the client and don't allow alternative clients and federation, it is easier to make changes, keep focus, and you don't have to deal with complains from users with crappy clients.
Signal is also security and privacy-focused, and Moxie presumably want to keep that image. What if some forks throw away that aspect, for example by storing plain text message in "the cloud". Personally, I actually don't care that much about the privacy/security aspect of Signal, as weird as it may sound, for me, Signal is just a nice, no nonsense messenger with security as a bonus and I would welcome a fork that makes a convenience trade off. But these less secure clients may undermine trust for those who really see it as a primary reason.
After reviewing the thread, I think that it may just be that we have had a genuine misunderstanding over the meaning of the word enforcement due to context. moxie has made it clear that third party clients are not allowed to use OWS servers, and enforced it by having such clients removed from the internet. I feel that counts as 'enforcement' although upon re-reading the thread I can see why this happened. I am not aware of enforcement on the server-side although this is certainly enough to dissuade me from pursuing third-party Signal clients.
edit: reworded after rereading the thread a couple more times
It looks to me like those clients were removed due to trademark infringement (having "Signal" in their name), I don't think they were taken down because their code connects to OWS' servers (would GitHub or Google ever honour a takedown request like that?).
Sending messages to authors of third party clients that you are not ok with their use of your servers (literally the exact comment the link I and other posters shared):
> I'm not OK with LibreSignal using our servers, and I'm not OK with LibreSignal using the name "Signal." You're free to use our source code for whatever you would like under the terms of the license, but you're not entitled to use our name or the service that we run.
> If you think running servers is difficult and expensive (you're right), ask yourself why you feel entitled for us to run them for your product.
Yes, they mention both trademarks _and_ servers, and yes, if there was not a trademark issue, github and google would not remove the repo just for connecting to Signal's servers against Moxie's wishes.
However, the act of informing third party client developers that they are not allowed use the official servers is itself an act of enforcement - maybe one with not much teeth behind it unless he follows up with a legal complaint, but still nonetheless enforcement.
I see what you mean, I guess the mix-up here is that we have different working definitions of "enforcement".
For example, I would argue that Moxie's desire for unofficial clients to not use the word "Signal" in their project name is a statement of policy, whereas the takedown requests to remove the projects from GitHub and the Play Store are examples of enforcement of that policy.
That said I think I can be convinced that directly informing a violator of your policy of said policy is a type of enforcement in itself.
