All Proton Drive apps are now open source | Proton
proton.me
Proton Drive’s desktop apps are open source, meaning you can review the code of any Proton Drive app for yourself.
  • franiis@lemmy.world
    14·
    6 hours ago

    Will they be now on FDroid? I think only one Proton app is there and it’s a little bit sad.

    • piracysails@lemm.ee
      11·
      6 hours ago

      Proton VPN and proton pass

      IRRC they even removed all telemetry from pass but not VPN.

      They should definitely push drive and calendar there too.

  • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
    1·
    4 hours ago

    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.

  • Mwa@lemm.eeEnglish
    364·
    15 hours ago

    sad its on github but am not complaining much

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      71·
      7 hours ago

      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.

      • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
        3·
        6 hours ago

        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?

        • 0ops@lemm.ee
          6·
          5 hours ago

          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.

        • delirious_owl@discuss.online
          11·
          4 hours ago

          “and”

          If you study non violent communication, folks will say to avoid using “I agree with you, but”. Because as soon as you say " but ", people get defensive and stop listening to you.

          Whenever possible, replace “but” with “and” if the sentence still has the same meaning

          • pooberbee (any)@lemmy.ml
            2·
            4 hours ago

            This was not a case of “I agree with you, but…”, though. “But” is perfectly appropriate here to contrast between the first statement and the second.

      • Mwa@lemm.eeEnglish
        11·
        15 hours ago

        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

        • delirious_owl@discuss.online
          1·
          4 hours ago

          Its actually more restrictive, in a good way.

          You can’t, for example, fork it, make changes, and sell that derivative software without releasing the source code

          • Mwa@lemm.eeEnglish
            1·
            4 hours ago

            yeah but drm is too strict for some people and anti tivozation this is why linux did not do gpl 3.0 or later

      • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
        40·
        20 hours ago

        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

      • TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml
        952·
        1 day ago

        It means it can’t ever become proprietary closed-source software (not without a major lawsuit).

        • ambitiousslab@lemmy.mlEnglish
          472·
          23 hours ago

          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
          • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            224·
            18 hours ago
            • “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.]

            Alternatively:

            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. :)

            • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
              3·
              6 hours ago

              IANAL, but AFAIK that’s incorrect. If you’re the only copyright holder, you can issue multiple licenses for your work. GPL doesn’t allow you to rescind previous issues, so anyone in possession of your GPL code can still modify and release it under the GPL freely. But it doesn’t prevent you from issuing your own work under a different license.

              There isn’t usually much economic sense for most applications to do that because anyone can fork the project and distribute it for free. For Proton, since they still hold the server as closed source, they could simply introduce a breaking protocol change and all the forks would be useless.

            • AwakenedAce@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              121·
              15 hours ago

              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.

              • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
                41·
                13 hours ago

                “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.

                • myliltoehurts@lemm.ee
                  10·
                  13 hours ago

                  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.

        • Quail4789@lemmy.mlEnglish
          9·
          22 hours ago

          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.

  • Lupec@lemm.ee
    109·
    1 day ago

    Very nice, I do hope that helps us finally get a Linux version sometime soon lol

  • bruhSoulz@lemmy.mlEnglish
    102·
    19 hours ago

    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 😑

  • JustMarkov@lemmy.mlEnglish
    610·
    18 hours ago

    Wow, so cool. And Mobile Calendar source code is still unreleased, right?

    • macniel@feddit.org
      124·
      14 hours ago

      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.

    • macniel@feddit.org
      111·
      16 hours ago

      Yeah I don’t understand why they don’t have a codeberg or similar that they host themselves.

      • Tja@programming.dev
        4·
        8 hours ago

        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.

        • null@slrpnk.net
          2·
          7 hours ago

          There’s a difference between handing something to someone and leaving it somewhere they happen to be able to take it from.

          • Tja@programming.dev
            2·
            6 hours ago

            There’s nothing in GPL that would forbid it. Only distribution without code publication is forbidden.

            • macniel@feddit.org
              1·
              6 hours ago

              mhm, and how would the distribution inside an LLM work? Are those code snippets CoPilot et al produce come with dedicated license sections?

              And regarding how it would help selfhosting the code: it wouldn’t be on the GITHub servers owned by Microsoft, which owns/operates CoPilot. Its akin to feeding the LLM directly by pushing it to their servers.

    • ryannathans
      311·
      22 hours ago

      Did it not before? I’m not seeing any issues

          • skoell13@feddit.org
            2·
            13 hours ago

            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.

      • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        22 hours ago

        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.