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.
It's open standard, not open source
but we need to trust them that the standard is actually implemented
Yep. Which is why FOSS development and support of FOSS developers is so important
The definition of words are indeed, critical 👍
Too many people misunderstand open source and free to use.
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
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?
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.
It's open standard, not open source
but we need to trust them that the standard is actually implemented
Yep. Which is why FOSS development and support of FOSS developers is so important
The definition of words are indeed, critical 👍
Too many people misunderstand open source and free to use.
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
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?
there could but it would take cash
or one could make it truly open source for free