> I throw around the label "proprietary" because software which doesn't come with source code is in fact, proprietary. If Signal pushes new server code to production and keep its source to themselves, calling that still "open source" requires serious mental gymnastics.

It comes with source code, just not on your time-frame. That's still open source.

And if that's unacceptable to you, just use something else.

>> Signal, for whatever reason, seems to attract a lot of entitled complaints like the ones I enumerated.

> No, besides your strawman the other commenters were all reasonable and constructive.

We're going to have to agree to disagree there.

But if you want to (for instance) implement a plan so we can be "assured that this type of issue won't occur again" in Signal (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27951759), be my guest. Or maybe you could develop a fork of it and show us your vision for it (including a source release schedule that's satisfying to you, a federated protocol, and all the the other demands in ITT).