XMPP Service Operators - 2019-08-14

Wow I didn't know NLNet labs was sponsoring Conversations

Holger: Ah, interesting. I use Swift actually, I didn't realize it was by M-Link

I have a curious question, what was the main motivation behind BOSH/websockets support? Was it to help reduce battery life by reducing the need for a long-lived TCP connection? Or was it for evading corporate firewalls?

aj: No, using HTTP doesn't help with battery life. Main motivation is that JavaScript clients cannot open raw TCP connections.

Ahh

aj, does swift have jingle and omemo?

tom: No.

tom: Also no inline pics, and their MAM support isn't done yet. Other than that it's actually a nice client IMO (quite robust, and more usable for non-geeks than e.g. Gajim).

Is it planned for is the isode clients stringly text messaging?

like just IRC-like functionality

I _think_ they're not big fans of OMEMO but other features are planned, but you'd have to ask them themselves: xmpp:swift@rooms.swift.im?join

tom: To add to what Holger said, swift also lacks file upload

But it actually has working carbons support unlike adium

> tom: To add to what Holger said, swift also lacks file upload Yup. It just has old-school peer-to-peer file transfer (which works with e.g. Conversations or Gajim on the other end).

why do people put each componet on a subdomain?

is that reccomended?

also, if i'm using mod_http_upload_external on prosody, do I still need to use a seperate componet if upload.mydomain.com is on a different domain?

tom, you cannot have multiple components on the same domain generally

generally?

e.g. you cannot put a MUC service and a PubSub service on the same domain and expect it to not blow up

you might get away with putting an upload service on a MUC service domain, depending on the server implementation, but that’s still messy.

is it a protocol problem or a server implementation problem?

I wouldn’t call it a problem at all

those are just conflicting features to have on a single address

e.g. when enumerating the items of that domain with both MUC and PubSub, would it return the pubsub nodes, the MUC rooms, or a mix of both?

ok, so If I just replaced mod_http_upload with mod_http_upload_external and the external server is on a different ip and server, do I still need to configure the server to put the upload componet on upload.mydomain.com ?

which server are we talking about?

Prosody

maybe ask in xmpp:prosody@conference.prosody.im?join ; I’m not 100% sure how http upload works in that regard

tom: Note that the JID of the upload service is usually not user-visible at all (it's unrelated to the URL; though I'm not 100% sure whatever module you're using somehow wants to relate both after all). And as long as you only allow local users to upload stuff, you don't necessarily need a DNS/certificate entry for that either.

only difference is that it doesn't show up is gajim's disco

but gajim detects the new functionality just fine and enables the http upload button

Fine then. Still hacky :-)

how can I make in not hacky?

are you saying I don't need a certificate and DNS pointing to the XMPP server?

but I do for the actual upload cdn

?

and that they can be the same thing?

I could only repeat myself.

what?

But whatever. If your setup works it's fine I guess.

I want to make sure i'm doing this all proper

yeah

turns out some clients freak out and try to use someone elses upload server

no idea why

anyways, on an unrelated note Would I have any interoperability issues if I migrated from an RSA4096 certificate to a ECC384 one?

anybody here use siskin before? how is the MUC support?

I can't seem to find their official support MUC, I guess that's a bad sign.

aj: try xmpp:tigase@muc.tigase.org?join

ah thanks

aj: xmpp:tigase xmpp:tigase@muc.tigase.org?join

but I guess it's a moot point now, I just checked with the #fsf, and they said that GPL apps are not allowed on the Apple app store

so I can't really fork the project for my needs =/

but thanks I'll join it anyway Licaon_Kter and Holger

They would have to add an exception for the app store themselves.

aj: what? VLC? Monal?

It's distributed there.

My bad Monal is BSD.

Licaon_Kter: Yes, known issue. There was big drama around the axolotl library until Moxie added an exception.

Monal is MIT licensed. I'm not sure about VLC, but they may be treading on a gray area

Exactly

I mean I asked the #fsf, I presume they know what they're saying

they wrote the license

Although they could be wrong, should I go lecture them? =)

ChatSecure is GPL3 afaics

He's the sole author though, so he can do whatever he watns

if we're forking downstream, we don't have that freedom

as the author he can do whatever he wants; the code he gives us is then GPL licensed, which makes it illegal for us to fork without an exception

aj: what? He says this is GPL and publishes ok...but you can't fork it an publish in the same store? Wtf?

Licaon_Kter, not necessarily, no.

Licaon_Kter: Think of it like this. As the author, he can publish it, then say no rights given to you whatsoever

he owns the code, so he can do whatever he wants, in addition to what the GPL allows/requires

that would be legal. But he chose to release it under the GPLv3. His own code, however, he can do whatever he wants with it

so he can also go ahead and give Apple permissions beyond what the GPL allows

but you can’t do that, because the code was given to you under the conditions of the GPL

He's not restricted by the GPL license, since he's not a recipient of the code, but the author

> I just checked with the #fsf, and they said that GPL apps are not allowed on the Apple app store Umm..what does this mean then?

that’s one of the amazing properties of the GPL which actually allows commercialisation of free software. many people don’t realize that

So you need to ask for his permission, at fork time just to be sure, right?

I guess in this case, it's misleading for these guys to say it's open source then

or free software, since we don't really have the ability to fork

Licaon_Kter I think if you get his permission you can do whatever you want with it.

Licaon_Kter, yes, and you need to ask the same permission from all the contributors.

It's free there on Github, not on Apple store since they inject DRM, right?

because it’s not obvious to them since they’re contributing under the terms of the GPL

jonas’: that's their problem...when you contribute you should know....not CLAs to sign, F that, but you know...read LICENCE file

Licaon_Kter, yes, but the LICENSE file says GPL

when you publish on the app store, that’s not under the terms of the GPL

so you need extra-permission from the contributors beyond what is in the LICENSE file, to distribute the code via Applecrap

ChatSecure has the same issue

The dev says if you want 'to relicense this code to distribute it on the App Store', I need to contact him

=/ ok I guess it's monal then

Secure their ok...first

jonas’, take a look the the dual licensing mess with the nextcloud apple "app"

if you get it from the developers it's licensed GNU

GPL

if you get it from the app store it's proprietary

it's the same app

apple is so full of crap

no developer should put up with apple's developer treatment

I remember when they gave Vulkan the finger and tried to get game developers to use their own proprietary graphics layer called Metal

and that's why macs have to games

*no

> Conversations has a grant at the moment for implementing A/V, and some money comes in from commercial requests what is A/V?

Audio Video