I don't know if services are legally permitted to dictate *how* users of the service can connect to it. In any case, there is precisely zero from stopping a software developer from publishing a non-Signal-branded fork of Signal that connects to Signal servers.
Signal would have to take that issue up with the users that are using that nonbranded fork to connect. I don't think they would.
@sp1rit @friend i'm not a lawyer but i'm not sure that there is any legal distinction between an authorized user of the Signal online service using the Signal-branded GPL client and a non-Signal-branded fork client.
technically, if the fork doesn't diverge much, it wouldn't even be possible for Signal to know you're using a fork.
Even if they amended it to do so, there is no technical grounds for enforcement, and while I am not a lawyer, I don't think there is much in the way of legal grounds either.
Just checked the footnotes. He bases this of a single github issue comment from moxie.
Yeah, probably no legal grounds but still.
that comment refers to two things:
1) using the name "signal". a fork should not use the name "signal", i agree.
2) "using the Signal servers". releasing software doesn't use anyone's servers. people who *run* that software use servers, not the people who published the software. moxie is talking about authorized users of signal using forks to talk to signal servers. moxie doesn't get to tell authorized users what software they're allowed to use.