8 ms·

Gab already forked Mastodon, and it's not clear whether Truth Social would surpass Gab in popularity. Unlike Truth Social, Gab actually complies with Mastodon'

Gab already forked Mastodon, and it's not clear whether Truth Social would surpass Gab in popularity. Unlike Truth Social, Gab actually complies with Mastodon's AGPLv3 license by publishing its source code, though in an obnoxious way (password-protected archive file): https://code.gab.com/gab/gab-open-source https://code.gab.com/gab/gab-open-source

colesantiago 5y ago
So basically Truth Social can do the same thing and be compliant?
- commoner 5y ago
  Yes. The other major requirement is that Truth Social must also be licensed under AGPLv3. > c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ognarb 5y ago
Last update was 7 months ago, either gab didn't do any chance if this timeframe or they are also violating the license.
- commoner 5y ago
  If they did update their production code since their last source code release, then you're right, it would be a license violation. I don't know if this is the case. Either way, it is much better to make occasional source code releases than to not release any code at all, when the code is under a copyleft license.
  - orik 5y ago
    Honest question: There is a lot of talk about Truth Social violating the AGPL license. If it it a work in progress and not yet public, do they need to share their source code, or do they need to share it once they launch?
    - smitop 5y ago
      The FSF has a somewhat relevant answer about this: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#StolenCopy https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#StolenCopy It depends on if the accidentally public instance could be considered a trade secret.
    - commoner 5y ago
      If Truth Social is running Mastodon-based code on a server, even if it is a private beta, the source code needs to be made available under AGPLv3 to anyone who can access the service. > d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html

colesantiago 5y ago

So basically Truth Social can do the same thing and be compliant?

commoner 5y ago
Yes. The other major requirement is that Truth Social must also be licensed under AGPLv3. > c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ognarb 5y ago

Last update was 7 months ago, either gab didn't do any chance if this timeframe or they are also violating the license.

commoner 5y ago
If they did update their production code since their last source code release, then you're right, it would be a license violation. I don't know if this is the case. Either way, it is much better to make occasional source code releases than to not release any code at all, when the code is under a copyleft license.
- orik 5y ago
  Honest question: There is a lot of talk about Truth Social violating the AGPL license. If it it a work in progress and not yet public, do they need to share their source code, or do they need to share it once they launch?
  - smitop 5y ago
    The FSF has a somewhat relevant answer about this: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#StolenCopy https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#StolenCopy It depends on if the accidentally public instance could be considered a trade secret.
  - commoner 5y ago
    If Truth Social is running Mastodon-based code on a server, even if it is a private beta, the source code needs to be made available under AGPLv3 to anyone who can access the service. > d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html