Any tool that calls itself “open source” and uses proprietary encryption that they refuse to let any neutral third party review, should absolutely not be trusted.

[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 137 points 4 months ago (4 children)

It's open standard, not open source

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 54 points 4 months ago (1 children)

but we need to trust them that the standard is actually implemented

[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 46 points 4 months ago

Yep. Which is why FOSS development and support of FOSS developers is so important

[–] ToucheGoodSir@lemy.lol 27 points 4 months ago

The definition of words are indeed, critical 👍

[–] cryptix@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 4 months ago

Too many people misunderstand open source and free to use.

[–] fossphi@lemm.ee 8 points 4 months ago

So can I write my own implementation and talk to other people via rcs? If not, then I don't think it deserves being called an open standard

[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Wonder if maybe there could be some organization that could fill that need. Independent, or a collection of industry vets, who look through the code and say if it’s safe or not. With the assumption details won’t be leaked or something to protect anything actually proprietary?

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 9 points 4 months ago

there could but it would take cash

or one could make it truly open source for free