Abrowser's "Hello"
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
So, has anyone used the new "Hello" video/voice chat in Firefox (and by extension, Abrowser?)
You can find more information here:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/create-and-manage-your-contacts-list-firefox-hello
Don't download the software on that website, however. Just update/install Abrowser to find "Hello"- I've yet to use it, but just from looking at the surface, it looks amazing.
What do you think?
"By using this product you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Notice."
Would definitely need some looking into as regards whether or not it's free software.
Well, it comes with Abrowser. If it's not Free Software, then wouldn't that mean Abrowser isn't?
EDIT: Just read through the terms. It didn't focus on the software, but rather, the service. The software (Hello) is apart of the web-browser, and is handled under the same license as the web-browser. The terms for Hello seemed fine to me- much better than other privacy terms I've seen before. The privacy terms for Hello are the same for the web-browser, and it seems to only mention how Mozilla can collect non-personal information, etc, etc. You can also disable this collection via settings. It seems all that Mozilla collects from using Hello is your email address and password- they may collect other information, as you cannot trust any server that isn't yours- but that warning is standard to all web-services, and it's up to each individual to decide whether or not to trust Mozilla.
I think Hello opens up a web-page upon calling someone- maybe the page has non-free JS? I haven't had the chance to use Hello yet, so LibreJS hasn't had the chance to examine it yet, either.
I've read quickly and found no great explicit worries. But we still need to take a more close attention, as I am not expert on legal reading so may be a small line compromising the project. And also because Hello relies on OpenTok by TokBox to work.
I'm neither a lawyer, nor is English my first language, but I couldn't find anything specifying the license. The good thing I was able to find is that conversations are said to be encrypted end-to-end. It's something that was my first question regarding HELLO. Also, privacy policy seems to be pretty reasonable.
Is there any easy way to ask Mozilla about the license?
Since
1. you can use the service without any non-free software installed on your computer
2. it's not SaaSS
3. the conversations are obviously end-to-end encrypted
the license of the software running on their servers is a minor concern.
It would be nice if they released the code, but it's not a necessity.
If it really works the way they promise, then we might have an easy-to-use skype alternative which gives the users freedom and respects their privacy.
Maybe someday tor-browser might include the addon - how awesome would that be!
I sure will give it a try.
"the license of the software running on their servers is a minor concern. It would be nice if they released the code, but it's not a necessity."
There's a strong ethical obligation to share, especially for something that would be generally useful. Please don't try to present it as "it would be preferable if they did" or "in an ideal world, they would." Those are not strong enough. This reminds me of another thread we were discussing things in.
That's right, and I still disagree with you; I already pointed out the implications of your logic.
Do you want to require *any* webserver owner to free her code from now on?
You can't tell other people what software they run on their computers, and you can't force them to share their code.
You _can_ decide not to connect to their computer (or server) or transmitting data to them, but from a privacy point of view, that's not necessary since there are other means to protect yourself: encryption and tor for instance.
I'm inclined to agree with Quantum. It is not an obligation for the server host to release the code they use, as long as it's possible to develop your own server by filling in the holes and reading the client's source code. If for some reason this is impossible, then there is a problem. But, with most Free Software programs that aren't SaaS and use web services, it's possible to do so.
"you can't tell other people what software they run on their computers, and you can't force them to share their code."
I'm not trying to do either. What software they run and whether or not they share it are different issues. I share all of the software I've made, see https://gitorious.org/jxself for the various repos rather than saying I've no need to share with people. There is such a thing as private use but once someone starts offering services to the public it becomes much less private.
In any event I've at no point said it's an obligation, only that it should be presented with a stronger argument than "it would be preferable if they did" or "in an ideal world, they would." Those are not strong enough. This is because sharing is good, and sharing the software that you make is a contribution to society, especially if the software would be generally useful. This is one of the key tenets of free software. I am surprised that neither of you see this. In either event, please stop conflating that with me saying that they "must" or that I'm "forcing" them to.
"I've at no point said it's an obligation"
In your previous post, you said, "There's a strong ethical obligation to share, especially for something that would be generally useful." Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.
"Maybe I'm misunderstanding something."
Yes, ethics and legality are different issues too. Ethically, they should. In doing so they can make a contribution to society. Legally they don't have to. What's right and what's legal aren't always the same thing. (It really is too bad that the Affero clause didn't make it into the final version of GPLv3. It almost did. I suspect this would be a very different conversation if the notion were something people were used to. Sigh.)
I think this whole discussion was about an ethical obligation, not a legal one (which obviously there isn't)
First of all, we don't talk about neither freedom nor privacy here. The question we're discussing at the moment is:
Should we refuse to coorperate with somebody who keeps knowledge for herself?
Next, i want to stress that we'll never be sure what software actually runs on mozilla's servers. So what you basically demand is:
in order to consider mozilla's hello to be acceptable, you want that they release a piece of software which (from our limited point of view) does the same job like mozilla's service.
Their server will still remain a secret - forever.
So what did we gain? We gained technical knowledge.
I won't make it a precondition for server owners to contribute knowledge to society in order to cooperate with them.
Otherwise I'd run into a practically unusuable internet: forget ebay, forget many onlineshops, forget this forum (afaik).
Things become even more absurd this way: i had to ask every server owner "how does your server process my data? You don't use any technology you keep for yourself, do you?".
Like: should I refuse to buy at an onlineshop which uses costum software unless they release some code which appears to be what they run on their servers?
That's my strongest argument, and you dodge it over and over again: Your point of view implies absurd consequences.
Can it communicate with the likes of SIP accounts?
No- it uses WebRTC. I just tried it out today. It runs like magic. I used two laptops (Each with the latest Abrowser and Trisquel 7), and Hello worked perfectly.
It can't? A bit of a forum flame war waiting to happen then (surely a forum somewhere will have a WebRTC v. SIP "discussion", right?)
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti