peetah: scroll above please, so you don't duplicate
kikuchiyohas joined
Vaulorhas left
kikuchiyohas left
kikuchiyohas joined
Licaon_Kterhas left
kikuchiyohas left
kikuchiyohas joined
kikuchiyohas left
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
alacerhas joined
alacerhas left
alacerhas joined
Vaulorhas joined
Licaon_Kterhas joined
wurstsalathas joined
peetah
sorry, I'll check the logs before posting from now on
peetah
Pretty sure this one was not seen here => BeagleIM 4.0 and Siskin 6.0 released: https://tigase.net/beagleim-4.0-and-siskin-6.0-released/
wurstsalat
peetah: please keep collecting. I don't mind duplicates :) they'll resolve anyway when adding content to the newsletter draft
jcbrandhas joined
N每cohas left
N每cohas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
N每cohas left
Alexhas left
Alexhas joined
goffihas joined
peetah
Does the cisco vulnerability CVE-2020-3495 considered worthy of the newletter ? it makes a lot of noise.
peetah
What bugs me is the mix made between cisco product and Jabber: in the article I run through, they are often taken one for another, considering that the flaw is in Jabber (the protocol) and not the cisco client
peetah
here is what I think is the original publication from the company that discovered the different flaws: https://watchcom.no/nyheter/nyhetsarkiv/uncovers-cisco-jabber-vulnerabilities/
peetah
s/in the article/in the articles/
Martin
Jabber *is* Cisco. I really don't like that jabber is widely misused as synonym for xmpp as people start mixing it up with the Cisco product jabber which is based on xmpp.
Martin: enlighten me here please: years ago I first heard of Jabber as a protocol, then it became XMPP; do you mean that Jabber was first a cisco product then its protocol has been opened ?
> sorry, I'll check the logs before posting from now on
No problem, please keep up the good work!
peetah
I suggest that the next newsletter relay these two articles in the same news so that we talk about these vunerabilities and make a strong statement about the possible current confusion between Cisco Jabber and XMPP as described in the link Martin just posted
emus
> peetah: please keep collecting. I don't mind duplicates :) they'll resolve anyway when adding content to the newsletter draft
yes
peetah
I don't remember having seen anything about limiting the newsletter to FOSS: is there something stated against proprietary softwares as I guess (without any real knowledge) Cisco Jabber is ?
Martin
XMPP can be used for closed source products as well (see games, grindr) so I don't see why we should not cover those in the newsletter as well.
Licaon_Kter
What, they aren't actively trying to hide its usage? :))
peetah
ok that's fine for me, it's just that I scarcely saw closed source softwares news in the newsletter
emus
I wonder if the licence should force at least naming that the technology is used 馃
Martin
What license?
Martin
If they don't use any OSS lib but implement it by looking at the specification they don't have to follow any license I guess.
etahas left
etahas joined
emus
Martin: I meant, the xmpp protocol has a license or, like gpl?
Martin
Not that I'm aware of, but I'm neither a protocol expert nor a lawyer. 馃槂
emus
so its usable without any license?
Licaon_Kter
It's an open spec, there's no license or price. Afaik
emus
Okay, thanks
emus
Martin: Need to think about it 馃
emus
you github comment
Martin
Ok
Martin
It's a minor thing anyway.
Alexhas left
Alexhas joined
peetah
Martin: reading the small introduction to the article might bring the reader to use an online translator rather than skip the article altogether because of a language issue
emus
I just dont like any [ --- ] things in the beginning of a sentence 馃槄 but maybe that is my personal problem
Martin
I think people willing to read an article in another language by using a translator won't be scared away by mentioning at the beginning that another language is used. 馃槂
emus
Yes, but I meant this about "reading flow" and convienece
emus
its like a visual interuption to me
rionhas joined
ldkjgoiwehas joined
Guus
> I wonder if the licence should force at least naming that the technology is used 馃
Cisco owns the Jabber trademark. The XSF has a pretty permissive (my qualification) license to use it.
Guus
https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
emus
Guus: You meant the jabber trademark, but not xmpp?