>>35706858 (OP)
>Will you still be using and supporting Tox even if the license changes?

Actually, no. It's what set it apart from other programs that can be used for the same purpose.

>>35706901
this,
>Appstore, TOR, lel

>>35706901
Like what?
What other open source, secure Skype replacements do you know?

>>35706858 (OP)
Nope, I own a GPL shirt for a reason

>>35706858 (OP)
>Looks like Tox-core will be going to a more permissive, app store compatible copyleft license.

If you take a closer look, you'll see none of the main developers have said anything about changing. It's just been randomners coming from leddit arguing with each other

File: 1375408443381.jpg-(69 KB, 600x450, 1373766382046.jpg)

69 KB JPG

>>35706976
It's the project leader than proposed the change, bro

>>35706976
Look at the last post, he's a developer and he's in support of deploying Tox on as many platforms as possible, rebutting one of the GPLv3 supporters' posts.

>>35706942

Jitsi for instance. Don't get me wrong, I don't object to TOX, but it has a lot of things to get right on the security, licensing, and usability front before I can even consider it as a decent replacement for a properly configured Jitsi or similar.

I don't want to see it converted to something to kowtow to fucking App Store nonsense. Fuck that. By that they mean APPLE app store nonsense. They could easily release a mobile client for Android via sideloading and/or F-Droid, using GPLv3 no problem. Hell, I'm pretty sure it wouldnt be much of a problem even getting it on Google Play or Amazon. I don't want to see it usurped by a license that is only there to make it so that Google, Apple or whomever can say "hurr duurr, can't release on our app store unless we can bundle in advertising bullshit, metrics, and other closed stuff". Fuck it. Keep it FOSS, keep it GPLv3 or something very similar and don't kowtow to the mobile appstore douches.

File: 1375408721715.jpg-(126 KB, 512x768, 1344831237276.jpg)

126 KB JPG

>>35707079
Exactly.

How did we get into this situation in the first place, with the NSA?

It wouldn't even be possible if we were living in a Free software world. Licenses shouldn't just be Free, they should support Freedom

Tox is shit anyway, who cares. I never expected anything good to come from redshit

>>35707079
You pick programs based on if they're GPL and fuck all other FOSS?
That's petty man

GPLv2, GPLv3, AGPL, LGPL
euuu too many

>>35707128
GPLv3 or die

>>35707079
Jitsi is LGPLv2.1, so it's compatible with the App Store and its library can be linked against proprietary programs.
It's the same end result, you've just chosen to be pragmatic about it.

>>35707045
Do you mean m3hr? He's added maybe 50 lines. Doesn't count as a main developer.

>>35707023
Only to LGPL though, it's that bad. He hasn't since said anything

already deleted it

I wonder if someone will fork this under a GPL license if it ever does change.
Such a move may destroy the community surrounding the program though.

>>35707227
That's a risk they take if they are stupid enough to sacrifice Support of Freedom just so they can sell their shit on the Appstore for $0.99 (which would render the "security" of it useless)

computer science is so autistic. fucking 300 license that barely differ.

>>35707111

No, there are other decent licenses for FOSS. However, in this particular case there could be a lot more lost by changing not just to some license (ie LGPL3 etc...) but to a license that is accepted by Apple for iOS.

If the dev who keeps talking about TOX for the "It Just Works" crowd on the thread is reading here, in seriousness that is not a market worthwhile - neither is Apple. Those who won't take the time to change their behavior or software for security - that's their fucking problem. Bending over backward and weakening your product so that it gets on fucking iOS App Store isn't worth it. It totally compromises everything the project sets out to do. Leave them alone and allow TOX to live on every OTHER system, mobile and desktop alike, that is compatible with a decent FOSS license and software built to serve users' purposes, rather than 3rd party app store middlemen.

iOS isn't worth ruining what you've started and Apple should change to admit FOSS with decent licenses, not the other way around.

>>35707211
It's his call too, all contributors have to achieve consensus since there's no CLA, and unlike the thread, most of the devs are in favour of transitioning to a more liberal license.

I won't be using it if this goes through. No user should ever be using it on devices that are considered malicious such as iPhones etc.

>>35707273
>liberal

confirmed for rabbit

>>35707252
It would be free, and how would it ruin the 'security' of the entire platform?
In fact, how can you make a judgement about the security if there hasn't even been a full audit done yet?

>>35707267
So the end result is the same (without the needless Tivoisation clauses that won't effect Tox-core) but you're against it, just because it's not the GPL?

>>35707287
What's ironic about that though is that iPhones have some of the best encryption for mobile devices.

>>35707313
I was referring to it running on an iPhone

there's nothing distinctly wrong with moving to the LGPL, especially as it brings many benefits for the fundamental survival of the application.

It's meant to be a competitor to Skype and other leading messaging services, that means it needs to be platform independent at minimum and aiming for ubiquity.

If licensing under the GPL will prevent such a task, then a more permissive license needs to be used and this is the exact reason for the LGPL's existence in the first place.

The source code of the licensed parts will still need to be entirely open, as will anything directly using it or statically linked. It will, however, allow third parties to use the code as a library and develop proprietary and commercial wrappers or applications that use it.

There's no fool proof plan here, but you can make a compromise that ensure the survival and relevance of the project, while keeping the code as "free" and "open" as possible. Those that wish to boycott such a change can do so, but there's simply no wiggle room to be found here.

>>35707335
that is a pointless statement since they are using their own crypto library

>>35707348
At this rate it is just going to become the next Skype

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qTw1kkFvlU&list=RD439y7ACSyxWS0

>>35707210

Jitsi is not compatible with the iOS App Store; its not available there. Also, its libraries are separate FOSS programs of their own (ie libpurple OTR, ZRTP etc...Jabber/XMPP), but it can't be basically stripped down and resold as a proprietary alternative. It isn't on the Mac App Store (OSX) or the iOS Store - so far as I can browse on the web anyway.

As long as the end product is essentially Skype but encrypted and no surveillance backdoors, then I don't care what license it uses. It can even be proprietary for all I care.

I just want an alternative to Skype that isn't complete ass or limited in functionality, and Tox seems like it's slowly on its way there.

>>35707341
The developers have merged code into the master repository to support other closed source OS's like Windows and OSX.
While supporting those platforms doesn't require a license change, if you're concerned about your security by allowing Tox on closed source platforms then you've already lost that battle.

>>35707402

You can already have this with a number of other programs, FOSS at that. Empathy, Jitsi, Linphone etc... any SIP VOIP-compatible FOSS phone that supports XMPP etc... will give you a "Skype Like" setup and you have complete control and modularity in terms of how and where you connect (ie encryption for streams, text and video etc..).

>>35707348
>The source code of the licensed parts will still need to be entirely open, as will anything directly using it or statically linked.
That's if they don't allow permissive static linking. Technically they could amend their license to permit this.

>>35707373
even if it ended up that way, better to be a known secure system without any NSA or developer backdoors than not.

However, the project will have no issue after this sort of change. It's unfortunate that Apple disregards the nature of the GPL (as far as I know, it's the only mobile platform that declines it, even Windows Phone allows it), but when given the choice of supporting the most dominant platform in the US mobile segment, where an applications like this could really catch wind, it's tough to say no, regardless of the requirements.

Why the FUCK is anyone even considering an iphone app when there is barely functionality on desktop versions?

>>35707470
I don't see why they would do that though. It's easier to understand the nature of vanilla LGPL than another customised and approved license, designed specifically for the application. Not to mention it doesn't actually benefit them to be any more permissive, they only need to meet the requirements that Apple has for iOS apps.

>>35707457
What? I'm just stating what I want.

I'm sorry that you're such a freetard that you're not open to other options.

>>35707469
>Empathy, Jitsi, Linphone etc...
>Not complete ass to use

Most alternatives that are available either suffer from having ugly, unusable UIs, or are bugged to hell.

>>35707388
It's not incompatible, LGPLv2.1 lacks the Tivoisation clauses that v3 has, and they're the main factor in preventing App Store acceptance.

>>35707511
probably because you're not going to be able to change the license when the product is finished. If the core is licensed officially as GPLv3, and the desktop application completed, then it will be more difficult, if not impossible to amend the license for future platform releases.

This sort of decision needs to be made now, while the project is still in development and planning.

>>35706901
I agree with this fellow. I will no longer support the Tox project.

>>35707545
that's nice. I'm sorry, I didn't quite get your name?

Oh... no, it's not important, don't worry. Goodbye.

NO FREEDOM
NO TOX
NO FREEDOM
NO TOX

PRESS 123 IF YOU WILL NO LONGER SUPPORT TOX

>>35707513
Why is slapping a generalised license on a program rather than one that better suits its purpose better?

>considering something other than the latest gpl
>at all
>ever

guys pls
you're better than this

>>35707511
As much as I love this project, I firmly believe the devs (or A dev) is thinking way far into the unforeseeable future.

The tox client can't even send files or video chat, never mind save ID's of those you've added as friends.

In my opinion, they need to work on it a LOT more, before they even consider distributing it to other sources other than GitHub.

I'm not quite sure I understand this. LGPL will allow people to make closed source clients for Tox, right? Can't those closed source clients do all sorts of malicious stuff with your data, ruining the point of Tox entirely?

>>35707571
>Being this much of a tryhard

>>35707576
he was stating that a custom and more permissive license would be better, which it wouldn't be, either for the project, its supporters, or its chances of passing through Apple's certification.

A custom license is all fine and dandy if you have the money or knowledge to properly write and maintain one, as I doubt anyone on the project does right now, and the necessity isn't there, I don't see the benefit of reinventing the wheel when the LGPL is there and caters to every need of the software.

>>35707472

If TOX developers are willing to swallow convenience and marketshare over security and the betterment of the project, then we've already lost. That's making the same mistake as all the people who use Skype because its easy and available, damn the security implications. There are some times you have to just say "No, this is unethical and goes against the goals of the program, eliminating its benefits".

The inability for people to act ethically in the face of easy profit/power is the whole reason we're in this shitty situation. TOX suggests it wants to be something better than this, and I'd like to see it provide a better offering, but they can't wimp out because they want to have their program sold on fucking iOS so much they'll fuck everything else.

>app store compatible
Only idiots care about this. Fuck your "app stores".

GPL holds up in courts. Use it. End of story.

DEVS, ARE YOU HERE?

If so, all I have to say is DON'T FOCUS ON THIS SHIT YET AND GET AN ACTUAL WORKING CLIENT BEFORE YOU DO.

And by that, I mean all the bells and whistles.

Then, once it's all finished up, decide upon what license to use and any other shitty worries you have.

>>35707601
Only if you're friends with someone who has a proprietary application and share data with that person, and then it depends if that application was created with malicious intent.
The network as a whole would still be unaffected due to the encryption employed

>Project starts off with good intentions
>le reddit
>le app store
>le profit
What a shame.

>MUH MOBILE APP STORES

Fuck mobile faggots. They don't deserve Tox.

>>35707623
there won't be any users or any chance of the survival of the application if it can't exist on a global scale. Why would people care about switching from Skype if the benefits of enhanced security aren't enough for them and the loss of use on their primary mobile platform (or OS, if they're using OS X) is paramount.

This has to beat Skype, not just in theory, but in practise... it can't do that if the application can never reach the users.

>>35707647
So does the Artistic License, what's your point?

>>35707675
Well yeah, but this means that some corporation could put a shit tonne of funding into their malicious client, making it the most popular one, and then all Tox has done is make a nice gateway of info into the hands of a company who people think they can trust under the promise of security through Tox. Just sounds like a terrible idea.

>muh app stores
>let's throw GPLv3 in the trash
Welp, we had a good run. Goodbye Tox. I'm going to be hiding these threads from now on.

>>35707683
It's all you faggots' fault for having constant threads about the project and posted about it on Reddit.

>>35707587

THIS. Why not just recognize that Apple needs to fuck off right fucking now with their restrictive, broken platform and concentrate on building a great, FOSS, ethical, technically viable program for Linux/Windows/Android and every other platform out there. THEN maybe once you have a good user base, there will be some leverage But first you have to provide a better program. Right now, I see a very early prototype that is being talked about as if it is a drop-in replacement for Skype, but it is really FAR more cumbersome and with a tiny featureset. I mean, look at the bull shit "friend code" style user IDs. You're worried about getting the tech illiterate iOS users, and your user ID is a 25 character+ random string of numbers? There is MUCH to be fixed. Grow it into something decent.

I want to see TOX succeed, but we need to be realistic here. This discussion about bending over to take it up the ass from Apple for market share is way, way premature, not to mention out of line iwth the goals and ethics of the project.

>>35707267
>but you're against it, just because it's not the GPL?

Not him, but you're reading into things that arent there.

I agree with what >>35707267 has in mind, if your main selling point is security, then it better be damn well security as a priority, if people want it, they will seek it out.

The people that care less about their privacy will manage somehow, Tox is for the ones that care.

tldr; iOS users aren't the target market

>>35707727
>Implying there isn't an official Tox subreddt

>>35707710
The originators of Tox still have community clout, should they wish to protest a closed source client they could easily slap warnings over their website and send the relevant press releases to the media.

>>35706858 (OP)
Apple keeps spying on you so you decide to suck their dick even more?

And this is why you don't do projects on /g/.

Because if it gets big, and there's one relatively small change, everyone will scream at you and start insulting you.

Tox devs, please just ignore /g/ and take all your discussions to Reddit or other discussion sites. While they may not agree with your decision, they at least won't be as autistic about it.

>>35707773
Be honest, how many people using facebook do you think know they're actually using XMPP? Probably less than a couple percent of them. It doesn't mean shit if Tox itself is saying "don't using this proprietary program" because the end user likely won't even know what Tox is.

>>35707765
A direct result of /g/'s constant advertisement of the project.

You keep shit like this under wraps until it's ready, that way you don't allow people like Reddit faggots to ruin its core.

>>35707687
>This has to beat Skype

Why? For the people that already have skype, what incentive is there for them to switch? That proposal "we have to beat skype" is retarded, it's like the same game MS played "we have to beat apple at the tablet game", and failed spectacularly because MS wanted to play catch up instead of playing with the strong hand.

>>35707748
Thank you for agreeing with me. I think somebody should link this thread to the devs on their IRC, and let them know what some people are saying before it's too late. If it isn't already too late, that is.

>all this uninformed butthurt

IF IT'S NOT GPL, I'M NOT USING IT
NO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS, BUT MUH FREEDUMS, IT'S HAPPENING, STALLMAN IS CRYING

seriously. There's a reason the people with any fucking sense - see: The developers, are going to be the ones with the final say on this, because /g/, in its majority, has and always will be, completely retarded and devoid of any worthwhile knowledge.

It's nice that we can hide behind the capable few that have worked on this project, but to think the masses are entitled to have a say in it, just because they frequently visit the "home" of its creators, it's laughably poor.

Stop being a bunch of faggots and learn to deal with the fact that the people that know what they're doing, are already doing it, regardless of your biased opinion

Tox dev confirmed for jews

we all knew the scent of sheckels would get to them.

>>35707545
>Implying you've contributed anything
What a faggot.

>>35707530
No it isn't faggot, do your reading

https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement

The reason why GPL software cannot be distributed on the app store is because it's incompatible with apple's terms of service

>>35707793
Sad thing is that the shills have infected the IRC, reddit and Github discussions.

>>35707710

This is worthwhile to keep in mind.

>>35707687

This is again, premature. Right now Jitsi beats Skype in both theory and practice, technically. The people that don't care enough about enhanced security aren't the target market for TOX. These people will NEVER switch from anything their friends don't have. Its like trying to sell combustion engines to the fucking Amish to try and get hurr durr iOS users to adopt TOX; its a fundamental disconnect both on behalf of Apple and normal iOS users.

The best way to spur adoption is to make something great that is truly different, secure etc..not target asinine markets that will mean watering down your product.

File: 1375410935255.jpg-(42 KB, 520x504, wachtturm-jude-1872438507.jpg)

42 KB JPG

Good goyim... App store ideals can only be met, not fought. Glad you came to your senses, vey. Now bend over.

>>35707827
If ur so smart y dun u fork it, fagot.

File: 1375410956664.png-(907 KB, 720x720, toxic.png)

907 KB PNG

>License changes in order to make an iphone app
>Community outrage
>Devs go with it anyways
>2 years later....
>Sorry, your app is denied. We will not accept something like this. Goodbye.
>Mfw

>>35707810
because that was the purpose, the develop and alternative that would offer functionality and support on par, if not better, while having stand-out security and promoting software and code freedom.

You can't just start shaving off those goals piece by piece to maintain one of them, you either drop the ideal of dethroning Skype, or you use a more permissive, but still FOSS empowered license. The choice should be obvious.

>Tox devs want their client to be as accessible as possible to as many audiences as possible
>/g/ has 5 million cows, thinking this somehow will compromise the original intention of Tox

What's so bad about wanting to create a Skype alternative that anyone can use, looks nice, and also respects and protects your freedoms on all platforms?

>just another app store app

it was fun while it lasted

File: 1375411000821.png-(708 KB, 1379x664, 1340507868729.png)

708 KB PNG

>>35707711
I'm the guy that requested the Tox sticky...

...and I can't agree more.

>>35707827
I'm sorry but the devs of this project don't know what they're doing and need to be told.

>Hurr this project is about privacy and freedom
>Durr we should switch to a different license just so that we can put this in a proprietary app store on a non-secure spyware device

>>35707800
A fork of XMPP, and I don't think that the foundation which makes it has ever put out a negative press release about services that use its programs.

Why bother being appstore compatible? Just make .apks for Android and tell Apple to screw.

Welp, back to Jitsi

>Will you still be using and supporting Tox even if the license changes?
Nope. Fuck the appstore.

>>35707908
I'm just saying, the backend of the program is irrelevant to people. As far as the users are concerned, they only need to know the client and whatever client can get the most advertising will likely be the most popular. Some huge company who wants to profit off your info will likely put the most effort into making their client popular.

>>35707860
Then explain why VLC has been shipped on the App Store with a LGPL library?
They've gotten advice that it is compatible.

File: 1375411158515.jpg-(49 KB, 350x467, 1tnAw1_SR4qKeOkmIfV3cAbBl(...).jpg)

49 KB JPG

>The great /g/ would-be success project turns out to be this huge of a blunder.
You guys deserve this, lel.

>>35707888
I think you're confused.

>you either drop the ideal of dethroning Skype

Why would this matter?

It's just like Tor, those interested will seek it out. IF it works.

>>35707902
Damn you're petty.
There are other copyleft FOSS licenses which do exactly the same job and are compatible, so why do you have a problem with the project not being GPL?

Is there really that much in a label?

>>35707957
VLC is dual-licensed

This is the essence of /g/. They actually got past the phase where 99% of /g/ projects die, only for the whole thing to get bogged down in license shit flinging.

>Everyone is freaking out because "APPUL IS BAD, DUNT SUPPORT!"
>Forgets that most people use shit like Skype on their iPhones and iPads
>Forgets just how much of a share Apple has in the mobile market

Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it should be ignored. By that logic, Tox should be only limited to truly free distros of Linux.

>>35707888

If you think you can "Dethrone" Skype, at this point of the game, you've already lost. Fuck. Tons of great projects have gone down the tubes because of that "We're going to be the next X, dethrone Y etc.." is their target goal, which almost always leads to a design process that is at best a "me-tooism" or worse, just shit.

The focus shouldn't be on beating Skype, especially on marketshare. They have the NSA, fucking Microsoft, and a fuckload of money behind them advertising this shit, plus an installed base. The only way to beat them is SLOWLY, by creating something designed not to beat them, but to be a great program in its own right and have enough people adopt its use over time. IT SHOULD NEVER BE A GOAL TO BEAT SKYPE.

Especially with a security-focused program, and a new protocol for messaging, it is going to take a LONG FUCKING TIME to convert/adopt marketshare. Now add this to it being a FOSS project not backed by billions that can be used on marketing. Attempting ot beat Skype is asinine, and will only ruin TOX. Instead, make it the best fucking program it can be, Fuck Apple and all the insecure, restrictive proprietary bullshit out there, and watch TOX grow into its own success. It doesn't have to "beat Skype" to be successful.

>>35707957
They caved to apple's demands and dual licensed under the MPL. If you want to support freedom, don't support apple and don't encourage people to use their proprietary DRM-laden appstore.

>>35708032
Jailbreak yer iPhone.

>>35707954
Not when the backend has gotten wide coverage and has a large community supporting it.
XMPP isn't really a comparable example because it's more server-side focused and Tox is distributed client side.

Into the trash it goes.
My only regret is not having contributed anything so I couldn't be the last bastion of freedom, cause, all authors need to agree to the change.

>>35708060
The average mobile device user doesn't even know what a jailbreak is.

>>35708020
The client is under the MPL (a copyleft FOSS license like the GPL, but compatible with the App Store) and the library is under the LGPL, what's wrong with that?

>>35708047
This poster is sort of right. It shouldn't be a goal to beat skype because skype is already a piece of shit botnet anyway. Anything that is free software and isn't a botnet beats it by a landslide.

However that doesn't mean you shouldn't aim to have a lot of features. I was thinking of contributing support for auth/LDAP services to this so that business can use it as a replacement for skype/hipchat.

>>35708048
And the MPL is still a FOSS copyleft license i.e. all of your changes have to be put under the MPL or GPL, forever.
You will not get proprietary forks from an MPL'd program, so again, why is there a need to stay with the GPL if the end result is the same?

>>35706858 (OP)
whatever it takes to get mass market acceptance is good

>>35708153
In that case, just sell it to Apple

We shouldn't be making a piece of software that iphone users want.
We should be making software that RMS wants. Because that is what humanity needs.

>Finally get project past point of "dead"
>Bend over backwards for "reaching the whole crowd"
This will remimd us why we can't have nice things. It's a necessary evil.

>>35708081

The average mobile device user isn't going to use anything that didn't come with the phone, or they'll click on a fucking app that has malware in-app purchases that call Zimbabwe if it means they get a new skin for their Angry Birds or a new smiley graphic for iMessage.

TOX is a program for those who care about security. Why would you ever make it or bend over to try to entice those who don't have the information or the inclination to give a shit about security? Those people aren't going to change until they begin to care enouugh about privacy and security to be willing to step outside their bubble of shiny, proprietary buillshit.

>>35708187

If you can do both simultaneously, that's the best result.

>>35708187
Exactly, imagine if it had a license that Stallman would approve of AND the usability of Skype. The best of both worlds. Tox could have been so good

>People chime in saying this is shit
>Without even knowing what Tox is about

Tox is about making an alternative to Skype that is easy to use, accessible to complete novices, and protects your freedoms and privacy. It aims to draw normalfags away from Skype, and it can't hope to even do that if it doesn't meet those points above and isn't available on popular platforms (Windows, iOS, Android).

If a simple license change is necessary for this to happen, then I fully support it as long as it doesn't go full on proprietary.

>>35708145
I don't have a problem with the MPL, it's not as good as the GPL, but there is nothing wrong with it. What I have a problem with is them changing the license for shitty reasons. The app store is shit and any developer that caves to the demands of these proprietary companies doesn't know what freedom is about

>>35708074
>they werent coerced into agreeing to this circlejerk
>"but anon, you get a share of the app store profits"

>>35708187
We should be making a piece of software that iPhone users want, but can't have.

This breaks my heart on so many levels.

Fuck you 4chan. I'm out.

I'm a bit lost here.

Why is GPLv3 incompatible with app stores, and why is LGPLv3 better for using app stores as a distribution medium? Isn't the only difference between the two something to do with others having to release their entire source code if they adopt parts of your software? Are we seriously saying that GPLv3 says that the iOS store must release the source code of iOS and its app store in order to distribute GPL software?

If it were GPLv3 could it go on Android phones?
Is Apple and their app store the only problem?

File: 1375411835783.png-(12 KB, 440x235, Capture.png)

12 KB PNG

>>35708258
Tell me again what Tox is "about"?

>>35708258
/thread

>>35708261
>What I have a problem with is them changing the license for shitty reasons.
If you're not a developer, then why are you entitled to have an opinion on the matter?
If the end result is the same, how will it effect you?

Let us be honest here.

iOS users do not care about secure, private, encrypted channels. The ones who do care knew what they were getting into when they bought an iOS device and accepted Apple's terms of service.

We don't make airplane seats for fatties, we shouldn't have to relicense for Apple.

>>35708074
They can strip out your code and rewrite it easily.

>>35708292
Android apps can be distributed via alternative app stores as well such as F-Droid or just an .apk from some site somewhere.

>>35707651
You have no idea what you're talking about yet you're yelling like a raging nigger.
The License should be decided before you get even a single line of code from a second contribute.
You can't change the license unless every contribute agrees, otherwise you need to remove what they've done and find a way to re-implement the function in a way that doesn't seem copied.

I wish you summerfags would educate yourself before screaming in full caps.

P.S They have an "ACTUAL WORKING CLIENT"

>>35708298
LGPL is still "free as in freedom", so I don't see your point.

File: 1375411991132.jpg-(16 KB, 603x393, 1339526611089.jpg)

16 KB JPG

>>35707683
indeed.

what a shame.

File: 1375412006945.png-(13 KB, 1303x387, siri.png)

13 KB PNG

>>35708298
Pic related

>>35708322
>They can strip out your code and rewrite it easily.

That does not mean anything. I would still be an author who has pushed the software into some state of functionality at some point.

Refactoring my code does not change that.