You must log in or register to comment.
It took me going to their GitHub to find out, but it’s GPL 3.
really appreciate you reporting back, thanks for sharing!
What does this mean practically
It means it can’t ever become proprietary closed-source software (not without a major lawsuit).
Any new open source software is always a net positive.
But, there are a few small caveats to the way they’ve done it (depending on how cynical/cautious you are):
- Because Proton are not accepting contributions, they own all the copyright, so can make the code closed source again if they want to (that wouldn’t affect the already released versions, but future versions)
- They could likely take down any derivative on iOS, since Apple will always take instruction from the copyright holder, for GPL’d code
- Since the builds are not reproducible, there’s no guarantee that the binaries they distribute are built from the source code
- “Because Proton are not accepting contributions, they own all the copyright, so can make the code closed source again if they want to (that wouldn’t affect the already released versions, but future versions)”
They can’t do that actually. They can close the source, yes, but if they do they can’t then release the new closed-source version to the public.
From the GPL FAQ page:
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program’s users, under the GPL. [Emboldened by me.]
Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?
No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.
- “They could likely take down any derivative on iOS, since Apple will always take instruction from the copyright holder, for GPL’d code”
Does the license prohibit this? Definitely. Could they get away with it? Probably. Though I’m uncertain Proton would go that far. I mean, if they wanted to prevent forks, they wouldn’t have released the source, let alone with the GPL3 license, which requires the right to make modifications (as that’s one of the Four Freedoms).
- “Since the builds are not reproducible, there’s no guarantee that the binaries they distribute are built from the source code”
Technically true, I suppose, though again why they would do that is beyond me. If they didn’t want forks, they likely wouldn’t have allowed forks.
Again, this is all assuming I’m understanding the GPL FAQ page correctly. If I’m wrong, I would welcome someone smarter than me to correct me. :)
The way I understand it is that they can relicense it and then publish it if they want, but the GPL would still fully apply to the previous versions.
The first question you cited seems to refer to any different organisation/individual making changes to the source code. And the second seems to refer to revoking the GPL for an already released version, which they would of course not be allowed to do.
This would make sense as ownership of the copyright would supersede a license.
“releasing the modified version to the public” would cover them re-closing the source and then subsequently releasing that newly closed source, so they can’t relicense it and then release the built version of the code.
At least not easily, this is where court history would likely need to be visited because the way it’s worded the interpretability of “modified” in this context would need to be examined.
Not a lawyer but in the scenario where proton closed the source but kept offering the build, even if gpl3 still applies since they’re the only copyright holder (no contributions) it’d only give them grounds to sue themselves?
From gnu.org:
The GNU licenses are copyright licenses; free licenses in general are based on copyright. In most countries only the copyright holders are legally empowered to act against violations.
I’d expect free software people to not have the funds to sue corporations. Are there any examples of these major lawsuits I can take a look at? I do remember a telecom company in France was fined quite a large sum but that was reported as a rare incident.
Any GPL violations would be reported to the Software Freedom Conservacy, who would go to court on the dev’s behalf.
There was a major lawsuit back in 2022 between the SFC and Vizio, and the SFC won.
deleted by creator
It’s pretty much not reversible and the code is free to use, modify, and distribute forever. And if you do modify it you also must make those changes open source.
Very good news
gpl v3 you can do pretty much anything but you have to put it the same license but it has like drm protections and Anti-Tivoization and also has some patent protections people find this license too strict
Why the but? GPL 3 is the correct license to use for open source projects to ensure they stay open and corps don’t freeload on them.
English isn’t my first language. I share your opinion regarding the license. Which connector would you use instead of “but” to indicate that you succeeded in your efforts even though it was harder you thought it would be?
English is my only language, and yours looks fine to me. I thought it was pretty clear from the first comment that the “but” indicated success despite difficulties, and as you clarified that’s exactly what you meant.
Ah gotcha, you could just omit but in this case and the sentence would have the intended meaning.
Very nice, I do hope that helps us finally get a Linux version sometime soon lol
Feels like this would be a bigger win for them than a lot of other companies. The people interested in privacy focused alternative to the Google/Microsoft/Apple offerings probably have a lot of overlap with Linux users.
I believe that rclone already has Proton Drive support.
It does, yeah. Still, having access to the official client too would be nice.
sad its on github but am not complaining much
Unfortunately GitHub is still where 99% of devs are
True :(
can you educate me a bit about what’s wrong with that?
bcs github is owned by microsoft
wow didn’t even know that. they certainly are hiding it well.
Awesome! Cant wait for their wallet thing to become ready and i hope they have support for many types of coins… also i wish theyd make it so that proton drive work with joplin 😑
they can only support one coin legally. for details check out the Opt Out podcasts’s episode about this topic
Can you give a summary of why that is?
I want to make the jump from Google apps but I can’t because I use GCal heavily and Proton Calendar doesn’t (yet) sync to GCal. I can enter in something in GCal and it’ll appear in Proton Calendar, but I can’t enter in something in Proton Calendar and it shows up in GCal. Hopefully they add that soon.
If you want to move away from Google apps, why keep using Google Calendar? Maybe someone has a suggestion for a way to work with it if you say what your continued use case for it is and what kind of limitations you are working with.
I have shared calendars with family and friends that I need to keep using.
Wow, so cool. And Mobile Calendar source code is still unreleased, right?
It would have only taken you two clicks to see if the source code of proton calendar for mobile devices is released or not.
spoiler: Yes the code for iOS and android is on GitHub.Can you give a link, then? Because I can only find a web-ui source code.
GitHub has a “clone” button, if you click on that you can get git links to download the code. The http-URL doesn’t require authentication.
Okay? If I can not find an Android Calendar repo, then how can I download the code?
You go here: https://github.com/ProtonMail/android-mail
It is a mail, not a calendar. Proton Calendar is a separate app.
Whoops.
My deepest apologies. I only skimmed it and didn’t realise that what I linked was the mail repository.
So yeah, the calendar has no sources for whatever reason.
So does it work reliably now?
Did it not before? I’m not seeing any issues
Drive sucks on Android (in my opinion). Severely lacking features.
What features are missing? (Maybe ignorance is bliss)
Atleastforme I’d like to have a directory watcher syncing updated/new files automatically similar to the camera syncing. I’ll look for a custome solution (syncing it first to my raspberry pi and then to proton drive) once I have my new phone.
It’s okay for like the occasional individual file save. I tried a bulk transfer and wound up losing half my iCloud files. Also I frequently get errors when trying to save to there on iOS.
Absolutely no issues on android with bulk transfers, moved around 10gb of files recently and imo worked better than other drives I’ve tested
Yet i cant use more than one free account on the mobile app?
More copilot training data.
Yeah I don’t understand why they don’t have a codeberg or similar that they host themselves.
How would that help? If you release something as GPL code, you cannot prevent it from being used to train a model, no matter where it’s hosted.
Im personally waiting for a massive lawsuit, legally companies cannot train AI on GPL code (at least I don’t believe so)
There’s a difference between handing something to someone and leaving it somewhere they happen to be able to take it from.
Oh it’s open source? where are the serverside repositories then
The title specifies that it’s the apps that are open source.
If it is running on the server you have no way of verifying the code or the execution environment.
Theoretically you should now be able to self host proton
proton is CIA
How would that work? Proton is swiss and CIA is 'murica?
I mean the “Crypto AG” was a thing. So not that unrealistic.
But that Proton is CIA is not that realistic imho but not impossible.
