> (...) the app also employs a proprietary open-source encryption protocol (...)
Is it possible for something to be open-source and proprietary at the same time? Is it possible if one assumes the definition of the OSI?
Is it possible for something to be open-source and proprietary at the same time? Is it possible if one assumes the definition of the OSI?
It is not. Although in this case, it could perhaps be interpreted as "proprietary protocol for (interacting with?) open-source encryption".
I don't buy it. Can you find any instances where it's used like that? According to that definition, you could also say "SpiderMonkey is Mozilla's proprietary javascript engine", which is obviously absurd.
Furthermore, the definitions listed on wiktionary and merriam-webster both seem to incorporate some sort of exclusivity. Just because it's your own variation doesn't make it proprietary.
Here it's a case of semantics, whether you're talking about the open-source software or the full package including services from Mozilla and the Firefox branding. Firefox as a whole is certainly proprietary to Mozilla, even if the code is not.
I suspect the intent re: signal is similar, where the code is indeed open-source, but IIRC signal doesn't network with non-official clients?
Probably best to avoid using the word "proprietary" because of the confusion/connotations, but I don't think it's entirely wrong.