Good question. Shame about the facts.
The licence report went where licence reports go: an issue on the developer’s own GitLab repo (#84, sitting next to #20 and #22, both unanswered), plus the FSF, Software Freedom Conservancy, Telegram and Huawei by email. None of that is a forum.
The F-Droid forum is a discussion forum for free software, where people argue about licences every day. A GPL-2.0 fork with 50M+ Play installs, no published source since 2017 and a paid ad layer that appears in no repository isn’t off-topic there. It’s the whole subject of the room.
And my topic never went live anyway. Staff deleted my account before any moderator approved it. Two minutes after that deletion, an F-Droid board member showed up on a different project’s GitHub tracker, called my report a bot, asked for it to be deleted, and wrote “Banned them. Reporting this as well.” He followed the report to another site to get it removed there too. That’s what the fdroid/admin issues are about. Not the licence. The deletion, and him.
Which leaves one comment on Telegram-FOSS 377, the only public thread about this app anywhere in a Telegram-fork community. Ten years of this, one comment.
Several people have now told me where I should have posted. Not one has told me which line is wrong. No hash, no commit date, no sentence of GPLv2 section 3 has been touched.
Want more data? All of it is here, every claim linked to something you can open yourself: https://opensource-compliance-gh.github.io/plus-messenger-gpl/
Impressive work. You ran a classifier on a stranger’s paragraphs, compared the score to your own, and diagnosed a mental illness from sentence rhythm. Write it up. Pangram-based deception screening is a real growth area, and HR departments will pay for exactly that skill. You’d be sorting CVs by em dash density inside a week.
Meanwhile: no, I don’t use AI. I think it’s trash. I read 305,000 Telegram messages, decompiled an APK and wrote it up like a report because that’s what it is. If writing in full sentences makes me a psycho, fine, I’m a psycho with a hash table.
A SHA-256 doesn’t change depending on who typed it. I built the dossier out of commit ids, signer certs, dex listings and timestamped messages for that reason, instead of adjectives. Three commits on rafalense/plus-messenger, last code commit 2017-09-13, straight from the GitLab API. An org/telegram/plus package in the shipping APK that appears in no published source. None of that needs my credibility, or my prose style, to stand up.
Now the two questions you asked as if they were checkmate, both answered in the document before you showed up.
CLAs run the other way round. Contributors sign one with Telegram so Telegram can relicense their work. It hands a downstream fork author nothing. rafalense isn’t upstream, he’s a recipient of Telegram’s GPL-2.0 code, same as you.
Special licensing is chapter 11, where I wrote, unprompted, that a private grant from the rights holders is the strongest defence he has, that nothing public suggests one exists, and that if one does, one sentence from him ends this faster than publishing the source would. People have asked since 2016. Ten years, no sentence. What his repos do carry is a GPLv2 LICENSE file, he submitted the app himself as “GNU GPL v2”, and his group’s pinned rules argue about the source in licence terms instead of pointing at a private deal. I wrote his best defence for him. You didn’t read it, but you did run a detector on it.
The six-year-old issue is titled “Implement Plus Messenger Features” and it’s the only public thread about this app in any Telegram-fork community. Open a new one and it’s spam. Reply in the old one and it’s necroposting. Convenient system.
As for “Irrelevant. Stick to the topic” being how you talk to an AI: you asked me whether I was a robot, then called my evidence untrustworthy because a detector didn’t like the paragraphs. That reply was the friendly version.