Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Skype Goes After Reverse-Engineering

Posted by Soulskill on from the trade-secret-my-son dept.

An anonymous reader writes "It appears Microsoft's Skype Division is cracking down on reverse-engineering of the Skype client. Skype recently rolled out a new set of APIs for integration into other desktop applications, but they have issued multiple DMCA takedown notices to a researcher publishing open-source code to send Skype messages."

147 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. Interoperability by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Doesn't the DMCA have exceptions for interoperability purposes? Surely these would come into play for a communications tool...

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    1. Re:Interoperability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and that technicality will keep it tied up in courts for years. And by then, your software will have stagnated and died.

    2. Re:Interoperability by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's why you use philosophical groups like the EFF, with sane business practices. Like, even if you are fighting for your beliefs, a civil rights victory is not enough: make those bastards pay the ENTIRE cost of your legal fees. The EFF operates on a philosophical basis where they would like to take on cases such as this, but in order to survive they must be selective; however, if they do take on a case, it is well and proper that they not only set society straight on the issue, but also demand compensation for their time and resources from those who are abusive and guilty of using the legal system as a high entry barrier battleground that they can gain an automatic victory in by virtue of being bigger, rather than correct.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    3. Re:Interoperability by SharkLaser · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Skype is not an US company. It is based in Luxembourg and has most of its team based in Estonia. DMCA doesn't apply here because it's an US law - point many people on slashdot like to bring up in defense of TPB etc.

      And note that Microsoft STILL DOES NOT OWN SKYPE. The trade has been approved, but it still works a independent company. And they have a history of going against reverse engineer, and Microsoft cannot legally interfere with their business before they actually own the company.

    4. Re:Interoperability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      as long as the DMCA does not fund the litigation required to actually be able to use this exception. it is a pretty useless exception.

    5. Re:Interoperability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      And note that Microsoft STILL DOES NOT OWN SKYPE.

      YES IT DOES.

      Stupid lameness filter won't let me yell back at people who yelled first.

    6. Re:Interoperability by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      I don't know what's going in Europe but in the US this should be a non-story. US courts have routinely struck down reverse engineering suits. Its completely legal to do.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    7. Re:Interoperability by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      While others has benefited from your software and the genie is out of the box.

      Just spread the knowledge and how-to into several different countries and the job to put the genie back is ending up being futile.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    8. Re:Interoperability by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1, Informative

      Wrong. Since the "u" is pronounced like "you" you use "A"...ala "a user" "a unified field theory". You use "An" in the case of the short sound e.g. "an umbrella" or "an understanding"

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    9. Re:Interoperability by Dunega · · Score: 1, Informative

      The third correction is justified, the first two were correct as written by the OP.

    10. Re:Interoperability by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      Really? You're going to pretend that a member of a warez group who cracks software is the same as somebody who reverse engineers a communications protocol for interoperability?

    11. Re:Interoperability by FoolishOwl · · Score: 2

      It's final:

      https://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2011/oct11/10-13SkypePR.mspx

    12. Re:Interoperability by mfnickster · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're thinking of McRosoft.

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    13. Re:Interoperability by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Dude, Skype issued the DMCA to an US based hosting service/ISP. You cannot issue a DMCA to Skype Luxembourg, but someone in Luxembourg can issue you a DMCA notice to you. As the GGP said, you have all rights to file a counter-DMCA notice claiming exemptions for interoperability. And you will submit the counter-DMCA not to Skype Luxembourg, but to your US based ISP/hosting service, and they may or may not notify skype about it.

    14. Re:Interoperability by WillyWanker · · Score: 1

      I thought that reverse-engineering has repeatedly upheld by the courts to be completely legal.

    15. Re:Interoperability by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Can't the same argument be used to ignore the takedown notices or invalidate them? "If I don't live in Estonia, I don't have to play by the laws since you don't either" , pretty sure there is no extradition since this would be a civil suite. Seems to work as TPB is still going strong.

    16. Re:Interoperability by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Except that the DMCA enables the circumvention of due process. Due process used to protect defendants against abusive legal action and in cases where injuctive relief is needed, a judge could hear the plea and give preliminary injunctions in those special cases where expeditious relief was needed.

      Now it's not like that with the DMCA. The courts will still strike down reverse engineering and will strike down under the DMCA's interoperability provisions. But it has to get before a judge first. The DMCA presumes guilt and offers an immediate, process-free injunction.

    17. Re:Interoperability by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      So why don't more companies who are interested in suppressing RE in their products using the DMCA? Surely Microsoft isn't the only company willing to use the DMCA to step on a competitor?

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    18. Re:Interoperability by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      Erroneus is in error. DMCA takedown notice gets issued by Skype, developer issue counter-notice as allowed in the DMCA and then it has to go to court or be dropped. If the hosting provider doesn't restore after the counter-notice or Skype keeps issuing takedowns and not react to counter-notices by either taking to court or dropping the claim, they are in violation of the DMCA.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    19. Re:Interoperability by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      It's because it doesn't actually work that way. DMCA doesn't violate due process as described because the person receiving the notice has the right to respond and then the case has to go to court and the interoperability/reverse engineering case will be made.

      There is the risk of expensive litigation stopping small players from fighting the case, but even without the DMCA, the big company still has that ability to try and outspend the small chap.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    20. Re:Interoperability by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      And you will submit the counter-DMCA not to Skype Luxembourg, but to your US based ISP/hosting service, and they may or may not notify skype about it.

      Actually they are legally required to both restore the material in question and notify the complainant about the counter claim. If they fail to do so they lose the safe harbor provisions they had previously enjoyed and open themselves to liability.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    21. Re:Interoperability by similar_name · · Score: 1

      A U.S. company is correct. Not an U.S. company. A Unicorn. A Union. You do not use an with a 'you' sound although you do with an umbrella.

    22. Re:Interoperability by tokul · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the DMCA have exceptions for interoperability purposes?

      It does, but sanctions for using DMCA to harass others are missing.

    23. Re:Interoperability by stms · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the DMCA have exceptions for interoperability purposes? Surely these would come into play for a communications tool...

      The people who were issued the DMCA notice can lawyer up and find out. Of course this means that they have to risk their financial well being.

    24. Re:Interoperability by erroneus · · Score: 1

      There have been NUMEROUS cases right here on slashdot where a DMCA notice was honored and the counter-notice was ignored or rejected.

    25. Re:Interoperability by Khyber · · Score: 1

      No, it's called Vexatious Litigant status, and you would ask for it in the court room.

      Sanctions are there, you're just unaware of them, apparently.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    26. Re:Interoperability by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, I see what happened then. I thought he was giving a direct quote, pointing out the "errors" and then posting a snarky/incorrect comment. I stand corrected.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    27. Re:Interoperability by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      "I love when people start out saying they're an ignorant AC."

      I shouldn't have to follow the conversation if the quotes hadn't been edited by the AC(see what I did there? that's what happened to me only the original quote was significantly further up the page and I had no reason to think the AC I was replying to had actually made the corrections)

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
  2. Is this new? by magsol · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Has this kind of crackdown on those who would reverse-engineer Skype's protocols always been around? Or has it only been elevated to prominence with the acquisition of Skype by Microsoft?

    tl;dr can we hate on Microsoft?

    --
    "I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
    1. Re:Is this new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot, nobody's going to care about facts when hating Microsoft. Go right ahead!

    2. Re:Is this new? by marcello_dl · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And likewise, every time we mention the sun we should go outside and check out that it's roughly spherical, you can never be sure.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    3. Re:Is this new? by Steauengeglase · · Score: 2

      Listening to some FOSS SIP developers I've been under the impression that Skype has always been difficult to deal with but you do it because everyone want to talk to someone on Skype..

      If I were in tinfoil hat mode, I say Skype is just tired of spending cash on the continual arms race of changing thing just enough to keep their competitors from playing anywhere near their turf and are going to take the nuke for orbit approach.

    4. Re:Is this new? by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 1

      You can always hate on Microsoft. It's a Slashdot right, don't you know?

      --
      When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
    5. Re:Is this new? by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      You can always hate on Microsoft. It's a Slashdot right, don't you know?

      True, the right to hate on the hateful.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  3. Publishing specs... by Bert64 · · Score: 2

    Come to think of it, seeing as the EU required microsoft to publish protocol specs a few years back, would they now extend this requirement to cover skype?

    I certainly think they should, proprietary unpublished protocols are extremely harmful to everyone else.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    1. Re:Publishing specs... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Are they still under those requirements in the EU? I know their US requirements have gone away.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Publishing specs... by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Come to think of it, seeing as the EU required microsoft to publish protocol specs a few years back, would they now extend this requirement to cover skype?

      I certainly think they should, proprietary unpublished protocols are extremely harmful to everyone else.

      Not certain, but that would mean you could go right ahead in Europe - actually, you probably could anyway as the DMCA only applies to peasant^H^H^H^H^Hople in the United States.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Publishing specs... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Have they gone away, or have they simply gone unenforced?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:Publishing specs... by tepples · · Score: 1

      The ten years of court-mandated oversight of Microsoft's U.S. operations have elapsed.

    5. Re:Publishing specs... by PPH · · Score: 2

      The oversight went away. Did the requirement to publish specs go as well?

      Just because an ex-con has completed his term of probation doesn't mean he can just go back to dealing meth.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:Publishing specs... by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      My understanding is the publishing protocols thing is with the EU so the U.S. oversight has nothing to do with it.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    7. Re:Publishing specs... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      The US anti-trust sanctions had time limits, so I thought the EU sanctions might have as well.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    8. Re:Publishing specs... by PPH · · Score: 1

      The original settlement was that they publish their specs. And that oversight for 5 years would ensure that they complied. As the 5 year deadline approached, concerns were raised that Microsoft was not publishing newer specifications (notably Silverlight) so oversight was extended. Twice, until expiration earlier this year.

      So it appears that, while oversight was intended to expire (conditioned on good behavior), the 5 year term did not apply to the publishing requirement. The oversight was extended beyond that 5 year period, indicating that the requirement to publish was intended to do so as well. In perpetuity, it would seem.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  4. Microsoft by Tomato42 · · Score: 2

    Oh Microsoft, it's just like you have never left.

    1. Re:Microsoft by allo · · Score: 1

      nope, its a skype problem. Since the very first version they were very keen on keeping their stuff secret, with spyware-like techniques of detecting debuggers in memory and not starting when they are detected and such stuff, just to keep their protocol secret (some people suspect they do more than just voip, noone knows because of all the binary obfuscation in their programs)

  5. Serve it on darknets by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you're working on any kind of software that could piss off large corporations - console hacking, proprietary protocol reverse-engineering, DRM-breaking, etc - host the project on a darknet site anonymously so they can't send you takedown notices or sue you. This should be common sense by now.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Serve it on darknets by countertrolling · · Score: 2

      On AT&T's (or anybody else's) wire, there is no such thing as "darknet". The host will be found and taken down. The only alternative is a true P2P chat than can connect you direct to the person you wish to talk to after exchanging IP addresses.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    2. Re:Serve it on darknets by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      There is Freenet, but a project on Freenet will be inaccessible to anyone but other Freenet users. It's the hangout of the extreme paranoids. A few 'Government is coming to silence me' conspiracy theorists, quite a lot of pirates, some religious people worried the Antichrist will come after them when he takes power, some crypto-anarchists who just want to support the network (It's far less risky than running a TOR exit node) and probably a few pedophiles lurking in the shadows. It is just about untraceable though - it's take a major government operation monitoring nodes all over the world to track someone down on it. Easier to just trick them into opening a trap link.

    3. Re:Serve it on darknets by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Please tell me how ISPs could identify the host of an .onion or .i2p site.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Serve it on darknets by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      If you packets don't go through their white list of 'approved' or 'authorized' sites, they will be silently dropped.

      This is happening right now? So basically no form of P2P communication will work then, especially not encrypted bittorrent?

      And besides, there's always DPI and various other methods they are not at liberty to divulge.

      Well DPI won't help since darknets use universal encryption. Do they have secret cracks for all the best encryption algorithms? Should I put on my tinfoil hat now?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:Serve it on darknets by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Dropping packets is much better than identifying the originator of a specific traffic.

      Besides, even if they limit it to a whitelist, one can always use any user content services to pass data. As someone who uses TCP/IP over SSH over DNS regularly on very limited networks, I know that.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    6. Re:Serve it on darknets by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Should I put on my tinfoil hat now?

      This time of year, you might prefer wool...

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  6. Money's worth by thenewt · · Score: 1

    Microsoft paid FAR too much for skype for them to stop wasting time, effort and more money on it now. Woe betide ye, FOSS clones... Time to look into this Google videoconferencing stuff.

    1. Re:Money's worth by Khyber · · Score: 1

      G+ hangouts are actually quite good. As soon as they get it up to Camfrog level where you can have 100 webcams going, then it will kick major ass.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  7. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who wants to interoperate with their proprietary crap anyways.

    SIP FTW.

    1. Re:Good by gparent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      SIP, a brilliant protocol that likes to negotiate a random port between 10000 and 20000 to open your RTP stream. Why not IAX2, which is a hundred times better and not gay as fuck like SIP to handle.

    2. Re:Good by atisss · · Score: 1

      RTP port is configurable in most implementations, however IAX2 is still in child diapers.. It works if you use example configurations, but trying something advanced might reveal problems.

    3. Re:Good by SharkLaser · · Score: 2

      Just like SIP is, compared to Skype. You can find or get anyone you need to Skype. Not so much with SIP. And you have to understand that what people use count a lot too.

    4. Re:Good by amorsen · · Score: 1

      IAX2 is a second-class citizen even in Asterisk, and approximately unknown outside Asterisk. Also, IAX2 as used by current Asterisk versions is quite far from the original RFC.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    5. Re:Good by gparent · · Score: 1

      RTP port is configurable in most implementations, however IAX2 is still in child diapers.. It works if you use example configurations, but trying something advanced might reveal problems.

      Like what? You forgot to finish your post.

    6. Re:Good by atisss · · Score: 1

      Try authorizing realtime peers. There is simply no code for reading peer from database on authorization request. That's the first I stepped on.

    7. Re:Good by am+2k · · Score: 1

      Uh, if you want to go open protocol, why not use XMPP + Jingle? It's way more powerful and unlike protocols originating in the telephony sector not a PITA to use.

    8. Re:Good by e9th · · Score: 1

      Do you think that if libiax was still maintained, IAX2 might be more popular? As things stand now, it's pretty much useful now only for inter-Asterisk trunking.

    9. Re:Good by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Do you think that if libiax was still maintained, IAX2 might be more popular? As things stand now, it's pretty much useful now only for inter-Asterisk trunking.

      No, I think the ship has sailed. The only credible threat to SIP is XMPP and we're years away from seeing a serious transition there.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    10. Re:Good by gparent · · Score: 1

      So your issue is with the implementation of the protocol and not the actual protocol then, if I understand correctly?

    11. Re:Good by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That's why we need to make sure we don't use Skype, so that less people use it, so that it never gets to a point where we become forced to use it.

      A number of years too late.

  8. Re:Idiots... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Ahaha nice try, but that's a gaping goatse-hole.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  9. RIP Skype by denis-The-menace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To all those people asking "Why do you hate MS so much?"
    This is why.

    When MS bought Skype I told people that Skype would die soon *because* MS bought it. Didn't know how or when but soon.
    Now, MS will kill all the various clients that made Skype ubiquitous and useful. The new Skype will not run on as many platforms and (in true MS EEE fashion) will not work with previous versions either

    Like Metalica, and Hurt Locker, Skype will now be shunned.
    A new *open* protocol will take over.

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    1. Re:RIP Skype by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      I've seen some people speculate that MS doesn't actually want the Skype service at all, but wants it's technology and patents to improve their XBox voice chat and to design new features for future Windows Phone versions.

    2. Re:RIP Skype by Haedrian · · Score: 2

      I just hope it doesn't feature-bloat like Microsoft's other IM.

      Before it used to be light and you could use it to chat. Now it takes 20-40 seconds to load, and tries to do everything and fails horribly.

      With skype integrating FB already... I think we can see what direction its heading into.

    3. Re:RIP Skype by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The Windows version was getting feature-bloated even before MS bought Skype.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:RIP Skype by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      A new *open* protocol will take over.

      So, moving on, are there any promising candidates in this area?

      And what of the infrastructure required? Is there any, such that there has to be some business running servers for VOIP clients to work well? I'm just not that familiar with it. I know you can do client-to-client connections, but what about directory services?

    5. Re:RIP Skype by timothyf · · Score: 2

      All the various clients? Uh... what clients were there besides the official Skype client? I don't remember seeing any, and believe me, I looked.

    6. Re:RIP Skype by ca111a · · Score: 5, Informative

      Skype was like this long before Microsoft. Fring supported video calls to Skype clients for several months, then Skype blocked it: http://blog.fring.com/en/?p=2322

    7. Re:RIP Skype by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      I just hope it doesn't feature-bloat like Microsoft's other IM.

      And I want to win the lottery. I think mine is more likely than yours... Feature bloat is the middle age of software.

    8. Re:RIP Skype by sremick · · Score: 1

      All the various clients? Uh... what clients were there besides the official Skype client? I don't remember seeing any, and believe me, I looked.

      Pidgin, Trillian, imo... you didn't look very hard.

    9. Re:RIP Skype by amorsen · · Score: 1

      So, moving on, are there any promising candidates in this area?

      SIP with ICE is certainly promising. The main remaining challenge is imitating the way Skype uses random well-connected users as proxies for those less fortunate.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    10. Re:RIP Skype by del_diablo · · Score: 2

      To all 3 of you: SIP is not a replacement for Skypes protocol.
      Its too troublesome to use, it lacks P2P video, and important features such as firewall breaching under NAT.
      SIP still lacks good client and lacks too many features. Anybody who thinks SIP is a replacement forgets what Skype is, and has also most likely never tested many of the features.
      And even if we manage to get a decent SIPish protocol that is miles better, intigrate it with a godly FLOSS client, and fix most of the issues: How will I get all the contacts I care about to migrate? Getting the normal people I know to migrate is impossible, but I don't care for them, I care about the bit more technical users on my skype list.

    11. Re:RIP Skype by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Pidgin and Trillian (until very recently) both require the official Skype client to also be running. GP is correct is saying there aren't other clients available.

    12. Re:RIP Skype by sremick · · Score: 1

      Well I have had imo and Trillian on my phone for ages and never needed the official Skype there. I was using imo well before Trillian. So there have indeed been other clients for a while.

    13. Re:RIP Skype by jminne · · Score: 1

      Hurt Locker was shunned? I don't get it.

    14. Re:RIP Skype by Threni · · Score: 1

      It was shunned by the same 48 people who weren't going to see it anyway.

      Meanwhile...

      http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/HURTL.php

      Production Budget $15,000,000

      Theatrical Performance
      Total US Gross $17,017,811
      International Gross $32,660,965
      Worldwide Gross $49,678,776

      Home Market Performance
      US DVD Sales: $33,721,130

      Boycotting a movie - why bother? No-one cares what movie you're going to watch/not watch.

    15. Re:RIP Skype by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      There was a story about The Hurt Locker a few months back where you can find plenty of random comments saying that it was a bad movie. The only ones that raised a real objection to it that I saw were here, saying that it was unrealistic. It seems like it's just a movie some people love to hate for no good reason, and a few people dislike for good reasons. The vast majority of reviewers loved it, it was the Best Picture winner, and it made several times its budget.

  10. I don't get it... by RobinEggs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Skype and their PR people are calling the project "malicious" and "nefarious", but it sounds like all it does is emulate Skype, so that you can send messages to Skype users while not having a proper account

    They mention the possibility that it could be used for spam, but that sounds like blaming the tool. Is there some other way that this thing could be inherently "nefarious" that I'm not understanding? Because it doesn't look dangerous to me.

    Unless you count the risks of an independent developer making something interoperable with, and potentially better than, the original product. We all know that's a grave and terrible danger to the safety of the free world.

    1. Re:I don't get it... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Could be useful for prank calls, harassment, death threats etc if it allows a user to make calls without having a Skype account at all (sounds like a serious security problem with Skype's design).

      If it's just an alternative Skype client that still requires an account, then it just prevents Skype from having absolute control over which platforms can access their network, in which case, fuck them.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:I don't get it... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      sounds like a serious security problem with Skype's design

      ^this. Microsoft threatening when they should be coding? Never.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:I don't get it... by MadTinfoilHatter · · Score: 1

      Skype and their PR people are calling the project "malicious" and "nefarious", but it sounds like all it does is emulate Skype

      Prosecution rests...

    4. Re:I don't get it... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Damn. Microsoft programmers also double as their legal staff? Here I thought they would have a staff lawyers hired specifically to handle their legal needs, such as issuing DMCA notices and suing other companies. The fact that their programmers are doing this is troubling.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    5. Re:I don't get it... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Google Voice at least is traceable. Email to SMS is only untraceable if you use a webmail service accessed through an anonymizing proxy. Prepaid cell phones have required contact details with signup for years now (at least in the US).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:I don't get it... by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      Prepaid cell phones have required contact details with signup for years now (at least in the US).

      And no one ever gives false information when registering a prepaid cell phone.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  11. Forget Skype by countertrolling · · Score: 2

    TinyChat Launches Dead-Simple Video Chat. But I can't tell if you need to connect through their site, and they already geo-located me, so maybe you should forget them, also. I'm looking for something with a direct connection between clients

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  12. Hiding Something by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    An engineer buddy of mine was doing reverse-engineering work on the Skype protocol for a job he had a few years back, he would come to me with shock and tell me about how dumb and insecure the Skype clients are and how trivially easy it is to get any Skype client to work as an invisible proxy for you without that person's knowledge by just using the skype protocol.

    If they're making such a huge deal about it, you have to wonder why. They've got some problems and they'd rather have security through obscurity. *sigh*

    Does the DMCA really prevent cleanroom / chinese wall reverse-engineering? Damnit politicians just have no clue...

    --
    GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    1. Re:Hiding Something by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      He wasn't doing "clean-room" reverse engineering, though; TFA mentions that he de-obfuscated a few different versions of the Skype binary.

    2. Re:Hiding Something by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      You can make "clean-room" reverse engineering while (somebody is) looking at the code. The only requirement is that the person writting your software dosen't touch the foreign code.

      You are probably confusing it with "black box" reverse engenireeng.

      --
      Rethinking email
    3. Re:Hiding Something by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      You can make "clean-room" reverse engineering while (somebody is) looking at the code. The only requirement is that the person writting your software dosen't touch the foreign code.

      AFAIK he was doing it all himself.

      You are probably confusing it with "black box" reverse engenireeng.

      Actually, I was repeating what TFA said:

      For reference, it does appear that this researcher is not doing "clean-room" reverse engineering. One of the comments he writes on his blog reads, "It is because I have only de-obfuscted 3.8 and 4.1(BETA) versions of skype binary." (In response to why he isn't targeting Skype 5 support at this time.)

      Moot point, because if he's one person looking at Skype's code and then writing code to interface with it using its protocols, that's not black-box or clean-room reverse engineering.

    4. Re:Hiding Something by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Note that you'll not see the words "clean room" anywhere in the Copyright Law. It is a fairly bulletproof way to get around any accusation that you're outright copying code and that any duplication is purely coincidental or non-creative in nature. However, it is not the only way to proceed.

      Generally copying code strictly required for interoperability is an accepted exception to copyright law, so you don't have to jump through hoops when you do it.

      Plus, the meaning of derived work is a bit murky in any case. If I send you ABCD and you send me GKJL it is pretty hard to argue that the one is a derivative of the other simply because you wrote it after looking at my ABCD. The fact that they serve the same function also shouldn't matter, since function isn't copyrightable.

  13. Skype will now be shunned by hAckz0r · · Score: 1
    What's Skype? Isn't that kind of like Google Voice?

    I was just getting to look into Skype before M$ bought them, then I quickly thought twice once I heard of the deal. I knew that M$ would change the API to "improve" the product, and then do whatever they could to kick out other OS's from the list of supported hosts. Each, one by one, has come to pass. No surprises there, business as usual in Redmond.

    1. Re:Skype will now be shunned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      www.skype.com

      What's M$? Is it some kind of retarded as fuck way to write "MS" that idiotic children with 1337-sp34k usernames use to refer to Microsoft?

    2. Re:Skype will now be shunned by jgtg32a · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Personally I like it when people write Microsoft as M$, it means whatever they have to say isn't worth reading.

    3. Re:Skype will now be shunned by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Skype and Google Voice have very little in common. Google Voice is married to the phone system for the most part - it doesn't support SIP/etc, although there are some ways to get into it via Gmail or Google Talk. I don't think it really is a direct Skype compeitor per se.

      Now, if Google Voice added SIP support it would be the perfect Skype replacement. Well, I guess some people use the video features, and for that you'd need to use a different protocol but there are plenty of open ones to choose from.

      That is what drives me nuts about these popular services - none of them just use the standard protocols and so you're stuck doing it from a browser or from a handful of platforms. If they just gave me SIP access I could just punch the details into my SIP clients and I'd be all set...

    4. Re:Skype will now be shunned by spitzak · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, M$ is *not* a different way to write Multiple Sclerosis or Mississippi or Master of Science or Morgan Stanley.

      It is a common way to abbreviate Microsoft to avoid ambiguity with these others.

      It is also entertaining because it makes people with the mentality of 12 year olds go "oh you are so CHILDISH! CHILDISH! CHILDISH because I say so. PBBBBBTTTT! WAAAH I am soooo KOOOL because I said you are "CHILDISH!!!!!"""" Look in the mirror for an example.

    5. Re:Skype will now be shunned by djlowe · · Score: 1

      You bought that UID didn't you?

      No way you're old enough to have registered it for real.

      Or he's really that old and senility is setting in...

    6. Re:Skype will now be shunned by spitzak · · Score: 1

      If you paid attention you would note that I don't use "M$" in my posts.

      What I was pointing out is that NOBODY uses "MS", including Microsoft. You can use "MSFT" but really using a stock symbol is really as insulting as using a dollar sign. "MS" is in fact Morgan Stanley anyway.

      I also find it fascinating that somebody can write "Microsucks" and nobody will say anything. But as soon as somebody writes "M$" there seems to be a whole faction of users, such as you, who cannot resist posting something, always with the word "childish" in it!

      If "M$" was such an indicator of immaturity then it can stand on it's own. The fact that you have this compelling need to post to somehow *prove* that saying "M$" is "childish" shows a great deal of insecurity that you in fact are not sure you really believe this.

    7. Re:Skype will now be shunned by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Where have I posted that? I would be very interested to see where I've espoused that opinion anywhere on this site or elsewhere.

      I merely called you out for being immature in your response to an AC calling out someone going for a cheap troll. Feel free to disagree with such a position, but making yourself look like a frothing neckbeard isn't helping your case.

      I personally think it's lazy (using the acronym 'M$') since it's extremely tired and says more about the poster's personal bias than being an accurate identifier for Microsoft. It's not really immature, just weak.

      Your response to that post, however, was one of the most immature tantrums I've seen on /. for a while. My post was addressing that, not whether using "M$" was immature.

    8. Re:Skype will now be shunned by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Where have I posted that? I would be very interested to see where I've espoused that opinion anywhere on this site or elsewhere. Unsure what you are referring to. If it is "users and defenders of 'M$' are 'childish'" opinion I think the quote in the abvoe post: "No way you're old enough to have registered it for real" would be difficult to explain as anything other than an implication that I am "childish".

      You and everybody seem to have missed the QUOTES I put around the childish part. Obviously parody is impossible in these postings which is really quite sad.

      There does appear to be a knee-jerk reaction to say "CHILDISH!!!!!" to "M$". After 4 back-and-forth you finally managed to *not* use the word "childish" and came up with an actual argument: that it indicates "personal bias" which is certainly true and by far the best reason to not use the abbreviation.

      Of the 8 or so responses, not one other than this last one of yours managed to not use "childish" in it's description! The inability to avoid the word "childish" seems to be a deep wiring in some people's brains. It would be fascinating if you could locate a single first-response to "M$" that does not use the word "childish" as I certainly have not seen any. However if you look at responses to stupid "Ballmer chair throwing" attempts at humor, there is a large variety, including legitimate explanations that the joke is really old and not at all funny any more: this indicates that this strange uniform reaction is not to any insult of Microsoft, but limited to this abbreviation.

      My belief is that this indicates insecurity in the poster that "M$" may actually become popular, much like the supposed "misuse" of the word "hacker". But then I don't really know, I just find it pretty interesting and fun to point out.

  14. Re:Know what would be hillarious? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Won't happen. SIP and IAX are out there, all free and decentralized, but all the proprietary junk continues to be adopted by the technologically-challenged masses.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  15. The EU Law was used by the Samba folks by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    The law forced Microsoft to provide them with the Windows Networking documentation: http://www.samba.org/samba/PFIF/

    How this could or would apply to Skype . . . ?

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  16. Soon as an alternative pops up, i'm gone. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    And I'm going to force all my friends who use skype to come with me.
    Ever since Skype started emulating Facebook, I've just hated it.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
    1. Re:Soon as an alternative pops up, i'm gone. by AmbushBug · · Score: 1

      Probably the easiest alternative for non-techies is Google+ Hangouts but its part of a social network like Facebook, sooooo...

    2. Re:Soon as an alternative pops up, i'm gone. by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      Then no real friend?

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  17. Funny thing that DMCA by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    A more blatant violation of the !st Amendment you will never find.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:Funny thing that DMCA by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Is that the F!st Amendment, or the 1st?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    2. Re:Funny thing that DMCA by Fned · · Score: 1

      Its 1st, but capitalized.

  18. Re:And it begins. by ledow · · Score: 1

    If Skype, or even Flash, brought down your OS, you need a new OS (and more than likely a new computer). Seriously.

    It's an application, and it doesn't even try to do anything fancy or to do with drivers (even the webcam interface is the most programmatically basic they can muster). It crashing your OS is your OS's fault. If you'd said "hung program" or "disk thrashing" or something else, I'd be on your side. But NOTHING should cause your machine to crash, no matter what it does with webcams, codecs and accelerated video windows.

    No wonder you got a "nofix". I'd seriously go away and check your disk, RAM, OS install, OS updates and software updates.

    (For the record: Skype installed for last 5 years, video chat used almost daily, updated whenever I feel but usually within a week or two of updates being released, on a 5-year old XP SP2 image. Used every day for 8 hours in work, 8 hours at home, sits in suspend overnight. Yes, I've had crashes, and yes Skype has stopped responding or crashed. But NEVER would I tolerate Skype if it did that to my machine.)

  19. Re:And it begins. by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

    I thought about calling him on that but I figured it smelled too much like a troll.

  20. Come on Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Publish the FaceTime specifications and protocols already, as Steve said you would.

    1. Re:Come on Apple by Shompol · · Score: 2

      I guess it's bye-bye Skype the moment they publish those.

  21. Douchebag Microsoft by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    Commits to open source, then commits to extinguishing it.
    http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/45131

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:Douchebag Microsoft by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      Not to mention Skype:
      Commits to keeping the Linux client up-to-date but never does.
      Then commits to making a connector library available so others can implement a decent client UI (or integrate it into Pidgin/Empathy/etc.) but never does.

      Now that MS bought Skype, it's essentially dead on Linux. Oh well, at least it'll force me to do what I've been wanting to do for a while: migrate to another platform.

    2. Re:Douchebag Microsoft by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      Now that MS bought Skype, it's essentially dead on Linux.

      You can stop at "essentially dead".

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  22. RIP skype on linux, android etc by phorm · · Score: 1

    Skype may very well run on "Microsoft" operating systems, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it phased out on other platforms.
    See what happened to RAV antivirus, and many others.

    Embrace and extenguish.

  23. This isn't about 1201 by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    No, the DMCA notice procedure says nothing about interoperability exemptions. And if you (and the people who modded up your question) had RTFAed you would see that is what the reference to DCMA was all about. This has nothing to do with anticircumvention prohibitions.

    If somebody has a web page that you don't like (for any reason, it could be copyright infringement, it could be voicing a negative opinion, or it could be about a product that is compatible with yours), check to see who is hosting them. If it's someone who immediately folds upon receiving DMCA notices, then send 'em one. Silenced. That's what happened here: the Skype-compatible guy was using Google's blogger site, and Google is too big to be able to deal with counter-notices.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  24. Let's have a website listing replacement clients by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

    and start pointing non-technical people to it. The sooner Skype dies, the better.

  25. Re:Know what would be hillarious? by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Won't happen. SIP and IAX are out there, all free and decentralized, but all the proprietary junk continues to be adopted by the technologically-challenged masses.

    This is why proprietary junk like Skype continues to flourish. You blame the users for the problem. The real reason is that the developers who advocate open protocols like SIP or IAX shun the technologically-challenged masses. They revel in complexity and flexibility, while most users just want something simple that works, no fuss, no muss. When users come to them with problems or questions, they're frequently met with scorn, ridicule, and non-answers like "it's open source, fix the bug yourself." Some developers even see themselves as gods, with the users as minions whose purpose is to worship them and be eternally grateful for their code.

    In a successful product, the relationship works the other way around. The users needs and wants are paramount, and the developers work to fulfill them. Put out a SIP or IAX-based product which is free, and as simple and friendly to use as Skype. Then you'll start to whittle down its market share. You can keep all the complexity and flexibility that you like, but it has to be hidden behind a simple veneer whose defaults just work for the typical neophyte user. The problem isn't that technologically-challenged users adopt proprietary junk; the problem is that OSS developers write software which is difficult for technologically-challenged users to use.

  26. Your sig... by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

    ...has a typo. It should be "since '95" instead of "since 95'". Since it talks about product quality, I figured it was worth pointing out.

  27. Re:And it begins. by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

    I ditched Skype ever since Version5 started an OS-level crashfest due to terrible video handling and essentially a "nofix" spat in my face.

    Skype is relegated here to a lowly eee, which is used for nothing but Skype. It is not allowed on any real machine. Skype is actually pretty horrible considering what it could be. It could actually tell the truth about who is online with reasonable latency, for example. It could actually handle running on two machines with the same login id for example. But whatever. Not supporting Android properly means that Skype is doomed, and good riddance.

    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  28. Re:And it begins. by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

    If Skype, or even Flash, brought down your OS, you need a new OS (and more than likely a new computer).

    I can see getting rid of Windows for that reason, but why a new computer?

    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  29. Re:Uhm... by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

    Skype should really go after the morons for design their UI, because it has the worst possible user interface EVER.

    Worse than Oracle Applications?

    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  30. It is time to move off a propritory format by Technician · · Score: 2

    It is time to move from Skype to SIP. With Skype, you pay for a Skype In number. With SIP you can get several for free. My SIP account is free, includes a free INUM number. Linking a free DID from IPKall or other provider is a piece of cake. With a free DID and Google Voice, calls to all the US and Canada are free. Worried about Skype compatibility? The SIP provider has had a SIP-Skype gateway for several months now. It is free too.

    If you want Skype to ring a phone, you have only one option for hardware. If you want SIP to ring a real phone, any SIP compatible VOIP phone or SIP ATA will work fine with it. Traveling? I can have up to 3 SIP phones connected in several locations at the same time. First one answered takes the call. The Multi Presence is free too. Great for a business line at home and work.

    Man this sounds like an infomercial. I won't mention any free SIP providers by name. Google them. There are several.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
    1. Re:It is time to move off a propritory format by SharkLaser · · Score: 1

      Google Voice doesn't even doesn't work outside US. I once did look at SIP to call other side of the world for free, from my existing mobile phone to real mobile phone number in another country. This meant I needed either Skype or SIP application installed in my smart phone. It also meant the network needed to support calling to mobile phones. Might sound like it easy, but it's not. Even Skype doesn't have deals to call freely to mobile phones everywhere in the world in their unlimited plan, but they have a lot more than any SIP equivalence. And they had for the countries I needed.

      Long story short, Skype works everywhere in the world, it's better supported and much more people use it. You may not see it, but many businesses and workers use it to communicate with each other. So do expats and people who live overseas. And this is just two of my own experiences that I personally know, I'm sure there's a lot more. It also works as a good IM and video call network.

      I really don't care if I need to pay Skype for the number and unlimited plan, as it's so much more supported, easier and less-work to use. I doubt many normal people have problem with that either. And contrary to popular opinion here, it's not even stupidity. We pay for lot of things every day for the convenience. When you pay there's actually people working towards offering a service, not some neckbeard living in his parents basement who's idea of support is ignoring all feature requests, telling them to read the man page and jabbering about how finally (for reals this time) it will be the year of Linux on desktop.

    2. Re:It is time to move off a propritory format by Technician · · Score: 1

      SIP to SIP like Skype to Skype is free anywhere in the world. Unlike Skype with one exception, I can use an adapter to connect a telephone instead of having to use a soft phone in a computer that is on all the time.

      Skype may have a better plan to call cell phones than SIP. Adding Google Voice is just a bonus for those who can use it.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    3. Re:It is time to move off a propritory format by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      I have been surprised to find pidgin's implementation of audio chats over jabber working really well. The video is not really working well yet, but for audio, I have an OSS replacement solution.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    4. Re:It is time to move off a propritory format by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Man this sounds like an infomercial. I won't mention any free SIP providers by name. Google them. There are several.

      Go ahead and mention them. The ones that I've dealt with are hard to set up and have terrible service. If you know better, then I'd like to be informed as well.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    5. Re:It is time to move off a propritory format by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Most of the external SIP phones I've seen can use Skype, too. I've seen numerous ones that have both RJ-11 for POTS and RJ-45 for IP (SIP,Skype,others supported)

  31. Re:And it begins. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    It could actually tell the truth about who is online with reasonable latency, for example. It could actually handle running on two machines with the same login id for example. But whatever. Not supporting Android properly means that Skype is doomed, and good riddance.

    I'll agree with you about the "who's online" latency. Can be a bit annoying sometimes.

    Otherwise, Skype works great for me on my Android phone. Often have it running there and on my (Linux) laptop simultaneously. using the same account.

    What lack of "proper" Android support are you referring to?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  32. Re:And it begins. by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

    What lack of "proper" Android support are you referring to?

    Video.

    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  33. Google's Plus "Hangout" has ... by Jerry · · Score: 2

    rendered on this Skype nonsense a waste of time. Talk to ten at a time, with video, using Hangout on your FireFox or Chrome browser. Kiss proprietary binaries good bye.

    --

    Running with Linux for over 20 years!

  34. Microsoft hacked into AOL remember that? by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    Remember when microsoft reverse engineered AOL's protocol so that their MSN client would interoperate with it?

    That pissed off AOL and Microsoft justified it .. and kept working around the fixes AOL would try until finally a judge slapped Microsoft.

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/12982/aol_and_microsoft_have_a_spat_over_chat.html

    That was about 12 years ago, when AOL was the leader in instant messaging.

    Microsoft = unscrupulous crooks, if it was OK for them to do it .. why is it bad if others do it?

  35. Could they engineer a decent mac version instead? by davesag · · Score: 1

    Rather than spending valuable developer resources on a lame red-queen issue like this, I'd advocate that the Skype people devote some resources to making a Mac version of Skype that doesn't totally blow goats. The new Skype for Mac is the only version of any piece of software that I have actively gone and downgraded back to an older version, and now, if I want to upgrade my Mac to Lion I need to 'upgrade' to the new, horrible version of Skype for Mac.

    Now Google Talk handles calls to phones, and G+ allows multi-user hangouts I find I have less and less use for Skype thank heavens.

    Please Skype people, I want a buddy list where I can actually list my contacts and see their names —is that too much to ask?
    I want to be able to screen share part of my screen again, like I used to be able to.

    Fixing those two things would make me come back to Skype.

    --
    I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
  36. The problem is not the client... by Hymer · · Score: 1

    You are looking at the wrong end of the problem, the client is not the real problem... The real problem is the infrastructure which is expensive to obtain and maintain.
    Skype runs servers in almost all countries, servers that provides SkypeOut and SkypeIn calls for a local fee, a free alternative would need that kind of service too.

  37. I don't quite get it. by FilatovEV · · Score: 1

    Is it a top secret information that Skype uses XMPP/Jabber protocol for text messaging?

  38. A freenet like development site would be useful by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    I'd like to take this opportunity again to highlight how,

    I still think a place to host and develop projects protected in the same way as speech like Freenet is important.

    It could just be an eepsite, mirrored to Freenet.

    There is probably partial answers to this but something as convenient as Google Code, sourceforge & github is called for

    --
    A blog I run for the wealth
  39. I no longer use Skype... by Eggplant62 · · Score: 1

    And I don't see why anyone else continues to use it. When I heard of the MS buyout of Skype, I immediately closed my Skype account and deleted the software. I want nothing to do with the criminal monopoly that owns it now.

    1. Re:I no longer use Skype... by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      What did you switch to?

  40. Go with Web RTC by fialar · · Score: 1

    Web RTC Site
    It's what Google Hangouts uses. I would love to set up some sort of Web RTC server on my own system to use.

  41. Interoperability and a better client by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

    Nimbuzz is better and for a while offered Skype service (a good indication of an interoperability disposition).

    Plus the added scariness of M$ becoming involved means I heartily recommend it, even if it wasn't already just plain better and cheaper.

    It's run by a company out of the Netherlands (EU. Legal protection, information and privacy respect + support for most IM networks + Available for all major platforms).

    Let's not do MSN again; no storage of sent messages, no privacy, crappy client application, split up community (ICQ, Jabber, AOL, Yahoo!, ETC.).

  42. Re:Know what would be hillarious? by SD-Arcadia · · Score: 1

    I think the best FOSS candidate for the task of replacing Skype is Jitsi (ex- SIP Communicator).
    http://jitsi.org/index.php/Main/HomePage

    It supports SIP and XMPP (Jabber) fully, including GTalk. Has built-in zero-config ZRTP. Also supports the proprietary IM networks like MSN and Yahoo to various extents, Skype being the only exception with no support (as expected). Been using it for a few months and the nightlies are getting better and better. The 1.0 release could make a good splash on the internet.

    --
    https://dalgamotor.wordpress.com/ - Elektronik beyinlere ozgurluk asisi (Turkish)