Toxcore-rs finally switched to MIT license

Happy freedom day!
To celebrate, come and contribute to github.com/tox-rs/tox

Other urls found in this thread:

github.com/TokTok/c-toxcore/issues/426
crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/47757/deniability-and-prekey-security-in-x3dh-key-agreement-protocol
code.mil/how-to-open-source.html
github.com/tox-rs/tox/pull/162
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

CoC when?

Tox is flawed. This is what happens when /g/ tries to do cryptography: github.com/TokTok/c-toxcore/issues/426

This is what happens when idiots read github issues without understanding cryptography.
This is a FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTY of deniable encryption. There is no cryptographic error here. Its a standard property protocols choose to have. It's basically
No shit if your private key leaks you are going to have problems. The trade off is what happens after the key leaks.

commie gplniggers btfo

Nice try chan kiddy, but tox is reddit.

Tox was literally made by 4chan /g/ you retard.

Who quickly moved to reddit once they realized how retarded /g/ was you missed abortion

Bullshit

fucking what?

I think you don't know what KCI means. I will explain it to you: Let's say that you have a frend, Alice (unlikely LOL). Now let's say that someone has acqiured Alice's private key. Let's call that someone CIA. Obviously CIA can now pretend to be Alice. But because Tox's key exchange is vulnerable to KCI, CIA can also pretend to be (You) or anyone else to Alice without having your or their private key.

There is no trade off. Using an actually secure key exchange algorithm has now drawbacks compared to Tox's insecure one.

Who would want to use anything coded in fucking rust.
I don't understand why people are complaining; tox doing its own crypto is excellent, even if it's flawn. It brings diversity. I don't trust openssl at all.

There are people who only see things in absolutes, in blacks and whites. "If it isn't perfect, then it's pure shit".

sure thing, kiddo.
why do you mention openssl?

Yes
I literally explained exactly that in my post you retard learn to read.
Yes this is a fundamental property of deniable key exchanges.
You are just wrong and have no idea how cryptography works.

Lol bullshit. Name one protocol with forward secrecy and future secrecy that is deniable.

*while not being vulnerable to the attack

Here I went out of my way to find more 101 level bullshit to explain this to you.

crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/47757/deniability-and-prekey-security-in-x3dh-key-agreement-protocol

wrong
no u

You are just wrong and have no idea how cryptography works.

Lol you retard. You do realize IKE is not deniable right.

How bad is MIT license? I tend to avoid using non-GPL3 stuff, but haven't seen arguments directly against MIT in particular.

...

Shit, I'm a few pages into a search trying to find arguments against the MIT license and I literally couldn't find one result that's not shilling it and attacking the GPL and Stallman. Wonder what could be the reason for that.

Attached: 10.jpg (236x231, 10.01K)

My gripe with MIT is that the MIT license only applies to the code itself and not the binary. As code your program is free software, but as soon as you compile it that program is not free software.
The GPL on the otherhand ensures that binary you produce from the code is also free software.

Let's say you write some free software because you are a free software enthusiest. If this code is under the MIT license someone can just compile your code and then start distributing that binary to users. That person can just strip out the freedoms you gave to your code by the simple loophole of just compiling the program. Personally I want anyone who is using my free software to be able to exercise their freedoms with it so I use a license like the GPL.

Both of you are dumbos, /g/ and reddit are one and the same.

As an user all you should care about is if something is free software.
The MIT license is a free software license, so it doesn't really matter if the software you run is MIT.

Attached: index_image3591.jpg (248x340, 18.99K)

I like to look at the licensing of free software a different way. People are allowed to fork permissively licensed free software into permissively licensed proprietary software. The permissive free software doesn't go away, it's the forked versions of that software that can potentially become proprietary software. Copyleft software is different, people are not allowed to fork copyleft software into proprietary software. The effect of this is that all users who receive copyleft software have a guarantee that the software is free software indeed.

LOL

If the four freedoms of the software are not granted to the user of the software, then it is automatically proprietary software. When you distribute an official vanilla copy of the Firefox binary without also granting the four freedoms of free software, this means you're distributing a proprietary version of Firefox.

LOL

code.mil/how-to-open-source.html

proprietary binaries created from non-libre open-source code are a developer-side problem, do not blame the license, blame the law
fuck dredd

Your new is showing kid.

If you do not also put where the user can find the source code for it then yes, it is proprietary.

If a developer takes MIT licensed code and uses it in a proprietary project,
then the users of that project are effectively not given those rights. Since
the MIT license provides a situation where a developer may legally do this and the GPL does not, the GPL is a superior license for protecting users' rights.

So roughly speaking, MIT suffers from the same crucial problems as a BSD license? Then these Tox fuckers have gone absolutely off the point they began with, it's a drastic change of mind in their original proposition. What could possibly be a reasonable, sincere reason to do this?

So what? Maybe those users don't care about being able to see source code and make changes to it. Maybe they only want software that just works. You ever think of those users or just yourself?

The more open a license is the more user it has.
I wouldn't mind if muh games used Toxcore for built-in chat.

So gnutards literally believe
this is next level autism

Attached: DYGARcVXkAAQL5H.jpg (533x300, 21.8K)

Good choice, you're wise.

Yes. Anyways it's just a hypothetical since it would be illegal to do that without clearly showing where you can get the source of the program since firefox is under the MPL.

Who gives a shit. Everyone here ignores licenses and pirates all media they consume. No reason we are going to listen to the GNU fags when it comes to intellectual property law.

github.com/tox-rs/tox/pull/162
This is only for the rust implementation as far as know, since the c-toxcore is still GPLv3.

You are the distributor of the software and you have the power to restrict users of their rights. You cannot point back to Mozilla and say, "download the binary here and find the source code at Mozilla". If you distribute the binary, you must also permit the four freedoms of free software.

So you actually believe that me putting an unmodified firefox binary on my blog makes it proprietary software. You cannot make this not ridiculous .

behold the insanity of gnutards

Attached: DayVA9_VAAA_j_S.jpg (1073x239, 24.44K)

I wonder how Terry feels about the floppy going to the landfill.

THE RUST REICH RISES
WE ARE USING THE SJW'S LANGUAGE TO DEFEAT THEM
AND WE ARE CONTRIBUTING NOTHING BACK

wow, interesting

You're wrong, cancers have difference levels of cancer.

Why do you think I used a *meme arrow* ;^) u retard?

Because you're gay.

Well no fucking shit

Zig Forums is full of LARPers

You know whats larping? Not knowing fundamental properties of deniable protocols. The alternative is your private key gets stolen and then they can cryptographically prove that every past conversation happened. Retarded!

Attached: DYIu_TpWAAAUlIO.jpg (1200x800, 190.34K)

you have exposed yourself as a LARPer

You literally cannot you retard. FFS learn the basics. It's a contradiction of terms. Your last retarded example was not even an example of the property.

ok, kiddo. I trust real cryptographers more than some Zig Forums fag.

...

...

>

No cryptographer will tell you they are compatible you retard.

spoken like a true LARPer

/g/ just wasn't retarded enough?

ayyy lmao you really showed me. you are so intelligent you should really upgrade to reddit instead of this place.

Attached: DdusbWYVAAADeIq.jpg (1069x653, 65.75K)

i'm not the one LARPing as a cryptographer. kys kiddo

Lol don't take my word for it user. Just go find an actual cryptographer making the same retarded claim you are. You will win massive fame with your discover of a solution to this impossible problem.

ok, faggot. i'm done responding to you. continue LARPing if you wish to do so. you still don't know anything about cryptography. read this btw: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
suck a dick, fag

Lol you are the one that claimed "literally every AKE. for example IKE"

nobody gives a shit, zetok