Is Whatsapp Open-source?

General
1

If digital public goods are defined by being open-source, meaning they can be modified, reused, and shared. With all the different versions of WhatsApp (like GB WhatsApp, FM WhatsApp, etc.) around, does that mean WhatsApp is open-source?

I will love to hear your thoughts guys.

1 Like
2

WhatsApp is not open-source.
Its source code is not publicly available for reuse, modification, or redistribution, which is a core requirement for software to be considered open-source.

Modified versions like GB WhatsApp are most likely unauthorized clones, developed through possible reverse engineering of the official WhatsApp application.

This ties into a point @vipul once made in response to concerns about people “cloning” a product:

If your IP (source code) is your primary competitive advantage, your business model may be at risk regardless.

read the full comment here: Protecting Open Projects-When Ideas Are Replicated and Sold - #6 by vipul

@Techlinkus u might be interested in this

1 Like
3

I honestly thought the existence of all these modded versions meant WhatsApp had to be open-source. I didn’t realize they were likely reverse-engineered and unauthorized.

Thanks for the clarification! This was super insightful.

2 Likes
4

Permit me to explain in krio for a better understanding
Let’s start with the definition
Digital public goods na tin dem wey open to all man.
meaning say anybody fit change am, use am, and share am wit odas pipul em.
for example, let’s look at how we dey play Ludo. Anybody kin draw new rules or color am.

But WhatsApp no be open-source. WhatsApp remains proprietary software owned by Meta (Facebook). Its core code is not publicly accessible or licensed for modification or distribution. Apps like GB WhatsApp or FM WhatsApp are reverse-engineered mods created by third parties meaning na some pipul dae fen way for copy copy di original app, change small small tin like color, emoji, or extra features, and call am new name.

But dat one no mean say WhatsApp na open-source.

Na like if teacher no gree show di recipe for make cake, but some pikin sneak taste am and try bake im own version. E go sweet, but e no be di original recipe.

Open-source na like when teacher say:
“Dis na di recipe for make cake – all man fit try, change or add sugar, an make e own cake.”
WhatsApp no do so.

So, di answer na: WhatsApp no be open-source, but some people still try change am, and dat nor mean say dem get permission.

2 Likes
5

Which is more secure: open-source software (where anyone can inspect the code) or closed-source software (where only the company controls the code)? Why?

1 Like
6

Thanks for your input @Wing_Dev. I love the cake analogy.

1 Like
7

This is a tricky one. And maybe neither is more secure as it depends on certain factors.

Like for open-source, if the code is not actively reviewed, a lot of things can go unnoticed. On the flip side, since the code is publicly available, anyone can inspect it, including independent security experts and ethical hackers.

Closed-source can be secure too, but it depends entirely on the company’s security practices.

1 Like
8

@salamymoody
Think of a house
An open-source house has transparent walls dt anyone can walk by, see if the locks are strong, and report if the door hinge is loose. But if no one cares to check, the weakness stays.

A closed-source house has opaque walls — you can’t see the locks, so you trust the builder to have made them strong. But if the builder used weak locks and doesn’t fix them quickly, you’re still in danger.

Let me give an example
The Linux operating system is open-source and powers most servers in the world. It’s very secure because it’s actively maintained by thousands of contributors who constantly review and patch the code and also we have openSSL who went undetected for two years because no one noticed the flaw, even though the code was public.

also let look at Microsoft Windows is closed-source.

They have a large security team and release regular patches, but it’s still a big target for hackers. In 2017, the WannaCry ransomware spread using a Windows flaw that had existed for months before a fix was released.

1 Like
9

Finally, Security isn’t about whether software is open or closed — it’s about how well it’s maintained. Open-source can be very secure if an active community reviews and patches it, like Linux. But if no one checks the code, flaws can sit there for years. Closed-source can be secure if the company has strong security practices, like regular audits and fast updates, but if they fail, users are blind to the risks. The real question isn’t ‘open or closed’ but who’s watching the door, and how fast can they lock it when it’s broken?
if you open u domot, tiff man go tiff yuh

2 Likes
10

Nope, WhatsApp is NOT open-source.

WhatsApp is owned by Meta (formerly Facebook), and its code is proprietary, locked down tighter than your grandma’s secret recipe book. They don’t publish the source code for public viewing or modification. This means you can’t peek under the hood or customize it yourself like you could with open-source apps (think Signal or Telegram’s open components).

Why? Because Meta’s playing the corporate game — controlling their tech stack keeps their competitive edge and protects their business model. Open-sourcing WhatsApp would be like handing your playbook to the other team.

But heads up: WhatsApp uses some open-source tech under the hood (like the Signal Protocol for end-to-end encryption), which is a win for privacy. Still, the app itself remains a closed ecosystem.

So, if you’re craving open-source messaging, check out apps like Signal, which are transparent, community-driven, and respect your privacy with open codebases.

11

Noted boss, well understood.

Will do well to check out the Signal app you mentioned, which is an open-source version of WhatsApp.

Thanks for your input.

1 Like