Why Telegram-FOSS development is so different from closed/privative? I don’t want to make it sound as a complaint…
Not posted at: Issues · Telegram-FOSS-Team/Telegram-FOSS · GitHub since is just in inquiry about versions availability 
Now, play$tore version feature calls, and also themes (with the great DARK one!)
Cannot wait 
1 Like
Telegram was not very FOSS-friendly recently and therefore it took some time to update the code. As you can see here, the build for the newest version was added two days ago and it’s likely only some time until the server of F-Droid.org builds and publishes the new version.
1 Like
Thank you for you answer 
I didn’t know about the lost of openness.
I hate when it happens. We think the project is the best, we trust the brothers Durov, and later we end up with code not open yet.
Do you think we will ever see a server federation?
1 Like
The Telegram ecosystem is currently so much focussed on a central server (link to phone number) that it would require a lot of effort to make it federated and the Telegram guys likely have no reason to do so. Instead we should focus on solutions with federation in mind, like XMPP/Conversations.
3 Likes
Yes, Conversations + OpenPGP is the way 
2 Likes
OMEMO should be the way to go, not OpenPGP
2 Likes
Oh! OMEMO Multi-End Message and Object Encryption. Yes, it sounds interesting.
Is it still “experimental” and on it’s version 0.1?
1 Like
The official XMPP extension is still experimental (0.1) but it already works very well - at least in Conversations.
1 Like
Already testing OMEMO in Conversations.
Telegram-FOSS? We already catch up the proprietary version!
V3.18.0 available since a few hours!
1 Like
You are invoking a free software right, on modifications, on account of it being not copyleft, but “open source”…?
Open source means developed in the open, it is a quality of software, and gives the freedom of seeing what is going on.
Being open source has nothing to do with the requirement of sharing the source code for new releases, for the case of argument under the same license, which is at the discretion of the copyright holders.
What makes it a demand you can make for distributed binaries, is the copyleft clause in the GPLv2, which is free software, and as a virtue of being copyleft, ensures it remains so.
«You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.»
AFAIK there is no leniency on the time allowed for complying with GPLv2
That is at-least as much of a demand you can make, and it is much stronger than a petition, which you don’t have to care about at all.
I don’t think this situation arose out of 100 people not signing their name onto a petition.
Ask the developers and get answers.
Being open source has nothing to do with the requirement of sharing the source code for new releases, for the case of argument under the same license, which is at the discretion of the copyright holders.
I disagree with that. If you look at The Open Source Definition – Open Source Initiative, second point, you’ll find that the code should be shared along the binary. That means the first release and the new ones.
That is at-least as much of a demand you can make, and it is much stronger than a petition, which you don’t have to care about at all.
I don’t think this situation arose out of 100 people not signing their name onto a petition.
Ask the developers and get answers.
It has been done, but users get the same reply: we release the source code when it’s ready to be released (client and server, both of them).
That is just a re-iteration of the free software guidelines. In a way that is ugly, but not different.
In doing so, it doesn’t change what open source is, an already existing term meaning developed in the open.
Things that don’t meet the open source definition, but are open source, are every bit as open source as the term dictates. OSI-open source they may not be, but alas.
Short of not being compliant with the license, it is strange that it can be ready for users, but not for seeing the code… What are they doing in the interim?
I don’t know. For example, the Android dev clossed GitHub’s issues because some people were arguing about what emojis Telegram should use… So they are a bit opaque 
It is a discussion better left for a forum, if people can’t even agree, there is little to gain from it.
I consider these new chat programs in part based on how difficult upstream is. This doesn’t bode well for Telegram.
