Hi everyone,

I have a degoogled phone running Telegram FOSS. I got a Pinephone Pro which comes pre-installed with Telegram Desktop. In the software centre it's stated as being "100% free and open." I'm just wondering if these two versions of Telegram are one and the same thing?

Thanks for any clarification!

You're asking if the desktop version of the official telegram client is different than the mobile (android) version?

The client is open source, but apparently not the server.

Thanks for your help.

I think you've kind of answered my question.

As you say, Telegram FOSS is for Android, whereas Telegram Desktop (client) is...for (Linux) desktop! Seems like a dumb question in hindsight.

Maybe the better question is whether the licensing and operation is basically the same for the two. I had a look at Telegram Desktop and the licensing is GNU General Public License version 3, which is a free, open-source license. Does this license count as a "FOSS" license? I know FOSS means "free and open source," but I'm wondering if there is a strict definition for a FOSS license.

Thanks again.

GPL is most definitely FOSS

Thanks.

I trust enigma9o7 on that, but maybe you shoudl just find www links to each version, check for your self, or share them here so we can check?

1 members found this post helpful.

More precisely, "FOSS" is an abbreviation for "free and open-source software", and "FLOSS" is "free/libre and open-source software" - if you're interested in strictness, you may prefer the latter term.

Anyhow, there are multiple definitions, the first is the Free Software Definition by Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation (and GNU), was written in 1986, and updated in 1996.

In 1997 Bruce Perens (Debian Project Leader at the time) wrote the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), as part of the Debian Social Contract, and the following year the DFSG was adapted into the Open Source Definition, published by the Open Source Initiative (founded by Bruce Perens and Eric S. Raymond).

There is a list of licenses considered free / non-free on the GNU website: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Note how it classifies licenses not just on whether a license is free/libre, but also on whether it is a copyleft license - i.e. whether it guarantees that derivatives are equally free.

A lot of companies (e.g. Google) push for non-copyleft licenses like MIT, which encourage developers to release their work in a manner such that those companies can exploit without giving back. Copyleft licenses are specifically designed to prevent this exploitation.

1 members found this post helpful.

On the topic of Telegram, it's already been pointed out that the server-side is proprietary (non-free).

If that matters to you, there are a number of decentralized alternatives listed at https://www.privacytools.io/#messaging

1 members found this post helpful.

Great info, people. Thanks heaps!

I'll see if I can find links to the licenses for both...

Thanks for this comprehensive reply.