27 ms·

Trump's new platform and the Affero General Public License of Mastodon

237 points by riffic 5y ago

riffic 5y ago
tl;dr: Software Freedom Conservancy is issuing tfg a thirty-day ultimatum. Remedy the violation, or their rights in the software are permanently terminated
- quotemstr 5y ago
  And of course this is really about software freedom and they would take a similarly hard line with anyone using the software
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > And of course this is really about software freedom and they would take a similarly hard line with anyone using the software The SFC is a relatively well known software freedom advocacy and watchdog group, one with 15 years of legal action under its belt. Are you implying that this action somehow breaks the mould with their prior work?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - hairofadog 5y ago
    Anyone breaking the terms of the software, sure. Seems fair.
  - voz_ 5y ago
    I'm fine with special rules for fascists and traitors.
    - qaq 5y ago
      You are fine with it as long as people who decide who's a fascist are from a camp you support.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      Be careful with that, it might turn out that you yourself is a fascist. Fascists in my country do not know that they are fascists, I'm pretty sure it happens in other countries too.
      - jokethrowaway 5y ago
        A very small number of people are fascists. It's just name calling your enemy to incite your people to punch them. Do the fascists in your country want a totalitarian one party dictatorship, racism and war against other countries? If so, they should know they're fascists and they will be more than happy to tell you so. I've talked to fascists and they're unapologetic - everyone else you call fascist is just your political enemy and you're slandering them.
        Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        > Do the fascists in your country want a totalitarian one party dictatorship, racism and war against other countries? If so, they should know they're fascists and they will be more than happy to tell you so. Oh, my sweet summer child! They do want most of those things (dictatorship, one party rule, war, less so on racism, which is not a hard requirement anyway), but they believe that fascists are their enemies!
      - gfodor 5y ago
        One good indicator of if someone is a fascist is that if they actually stop being in charge for reasons other than death or military defeat they are not a fascist.
        monocasa 5y ago
        That would exclude obvious fascists like Pinochet.
        gfodor 5y ago
        Even if Pinochet was a fascist, it is hardly "obvious." Dictators may step down. Fascist dictators, not so much. Trump could have kicked off a civil war and retained his power past the deadline with one or two sentences. If he is a fascist, he is a fairly uncommitted one.
  - eropple 5y ago
    Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter; unlike the active protection considerations of trademark, copyright and licensing are in no way obligated to be applied evenly. I trust you're not surprised that it turns out that folks who are considered to be generally bad-faith actors--or, y'know, literal-not-figurative fascists, no matter how ineffectual they are--get less leash than your average person.
    - jimbob45 5y ago
      >copyright and licensing are in no way obligated to be applied evenly That's interesting. Is that why Apple is getting a pass for giving some app developers sweetheart deals on their App Store?
      - mulmen 5y ago
        No. They get a pass because it is their App Store. Sweetheart deals are also known as doing business.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Also this week, they announced action against Vizio for a GPL violation. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28920954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28920954
  - lghh 5y ago
    Seems reasonable that someone would enforce their license that prevents use of their software for someone they specifically don't want using their software.
  - yodon 5y ago
    Do you have evidence the FSF has commonly ignored prominent license violations in the past that would make it surprising for them to take action here? If not, please refrain from casting unsubstantiated aspersions.
  - gfodor 5y ago
    Feels to me like if this goes to court there's a good chance the AGPL will be thrown out as-is. Otherwise, it means that if an engineer accidentally pushes a configuration error to a firewall for a few minutes, and one individual happens to hit the site while it is exposed, suddenly the company has to disclose all of its IP. This seems relatively insane, so if they're going to push on it so hard to make a political statement it may on net be worse to see it be thrown out. You know damn well this will go to court before Trump's army of lawyers concedes and releases any source code. And, as usual, it is going to revolting to see tribalism consume everything - I suppose it was a matter of time before supporting the GPL became a "blue or red team" position.
    - adrr 5y ago
      Default copyright law doesn’t allow for copying the source. AGPL provides people with more rights than the default. Assuming it is a registered copyright, if AGPL license is found invalid then copyright owner could file for statutory damages which could be quite high.
    - onionisafruit 5y ago
      If it's decided that AGPL isn't a valid license, that will mean that Trump's org and most of the rest of us have no license to use Mastadon and thousands of other software projects.
      - gfodor 5y ago
        Correct. I'm not sure of your point. This would obviously be immediately rectified with a new version that addresses any judgement.
        onionisafruit 5y ago
        I had no point. It's just interesting to consider the fallout from that. Some projects could relicense as you say if they have consent from all of their copyright owners, but other projects aren't in a position to do that. They have contributors who can't be contacted or wouldn't be willing to relicense their work.
  - Kye 5y ago
    You're implying some hypocrisy that I haven't seen. Who is the other person/organization that violated the license of open source code but got off without criticism? Even huge tech companies obey the licenses of the open source software they use. Every proprietary tool I use has a long list of code used with the required preamble for each even if it's the same one, licenses (mostly MIT and similar), and where to find it.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  I'm not quite sure that AGPL can be "permanently terminated".
  - monocasa 5y ago
    From the AGPL itself: > 8. Termination. > You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11). > However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation. > Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice. > Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same material under section 10.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      And where is the "permanent termination" in here? Once a user ceases a violation, his license is reinstated, _permanently_. Thus, the license can't be _permanently terminated_. Permanent termination means that you will lose the right to use this software forever, without any recourse.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        No, it's reinstated permanently if the copyright holder fails to reply within 60 days of the cessation, (and provisionally entirely on the whim of the copyright holder). The SF Conservancy is openly stating that they don't plan to drop the ball in those ways.
GranPC 5y ago
The thing I don't get is that this new platform hasn't been officially released to users. Are they really required to make the source code available if it's an internal service, before the official launch?
- animal_spirits 5y ago
  It had been officially released to users for a short period of time before it was taken down, as the article states. Since it was public, that public use of the code needs to be published as it was when it was public.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    No. AGPL requires to provide source code only to users of the server [1]: It requires the operator of a network server to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server. Also, AGPL does not define a method for providing source code, be it publishing on a web server, sending by email, delivering on a floppy disk via messenger dogs or printing it on a papyrus and sending it with pigeon mail. And lastly, you claim the service was 'officially released'. According to Trump's official statement, the official launch of a service will be in January. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- zarzavat 5y ago
  Internal testing: no. Public testing; yes. Launch and release has no legal meaning, gmail was in beta for years. What matters is who can access it?
- ksec 5y ago
  That is actually an interesting question. Does a non-user of a services have the right to request for the source under the current AGPL 3 legal framework?
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
There is a potential (perhaps small) for this to backfire spectacularly for the SF Conservancy. Here is the scenario. Trump doesn’t comply even after the letter. The SF Conservancy files a lawsuit. It goes to court, and Trump loses. It keeps getting appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court (1/3 of whom were appointed by Trump) rules that copyleft licenses are unenforceable. GPL, AFGPL dead.
- blitzar 5y ago
  Yeah but then hollywood dead, music industry dead, patents dead, industry dead. America dead. Aint gonna happen.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
    How would ending copyleft license hurt Hollywood? I am not talking about copyright, which you are correct would be massively disruptive. I am talking about copyleft such as GPL, etc which as far as I know have never been really tested in a US court of law.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  You may not like all the decisions the Supreme Court makes, but those three justices are not Trump's puppets. And even if they were, then the decision should still be 6-3 against Trump. So I think your scenario is pretty much dead.
- r00fus 5y ago
  This is extremely unlikely. Copyleft intrinsically hinges copyright. More likely, if there was some judge that ruled against this case they'd carve out something in the specific scenario here rather than GPL/copyleft in general - that would open up too many cans of worms.
Animats 5y ago
Trump's thing is running on Mastodon? That's unexpected. What changes have they made that need to be redistributed?
- not2b 5y ago
  The site has to offer a mechanism to download the source code of the version of Mastodon that is being run, including any modifications. The claim here is that they did not do that, so they are infringing.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    Is that requirement only for sites that have modified the source code? E.g. if I use Mastodon but change nothing at all, do I still have to host a repo somewhere with the source?
    - ragebol 5y ago
      Yes. Or make it available for download some other way. The license text is quite clear.
      - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        Why not simply download it from the mastodon website?
        ragebol 5y ago
        then you have to link to it. But I think that if somehow Mastodon stops making code available (which would be unlikely), you still have provide source code, as long as you run it.
    - deadbunny 5y ago
      If you're running with no modification you'd still need to link back to the source code. Likely the mastadon repo in this example.
deadalus 5y ago
Gab also used Mastodon but they don't anymore anymore. They did run as a Mastodon instance[1], but after being blocked from most instances and even at the software level by most Mastodon apps, they stopped using Mastodon and wrote their own new backend that does not federate. Gab has also been banned from Fdroid[2]. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/12/20691957/mastodon-decentralized-social-network-gab-migration-fediverse-app-blocking https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/12/20691957/mastodon-decentr... [2] https://reclaimthenet.org/f-droid-bans-gab-app/ https://reclaimthenet.org/f-droid-bans-gab-app/
- vadfa 5y ago
  It's pathetic all they did to Gab and it shows how biased the open source community at large is.
  - scrollaway 5y ago
    “Biased”. As if your own point of view isn’t. People have their limits. Most people aren’t absolutists, taking their philosophy to the extreme and utterly unable to make exceptions to their rules when egregious examples show up. Turns out, most people don’t just dislike gab, they think it’s dangerous not to take action and don’t want to be on the eventual wall of people who Did Nothing when retrospection comes. That’s not really bias, it’s called having a moral compass. You’re free to disagree with its tuning of course.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      People are either for free speech or against it. If a site that states "supporting free speech" as reason for their existence decides against free speech, it is disappointing. Of course everybody can decide what they want, but it can still be disappointing and a betrayal of trust.
    - vadfa 5y ago
      [flagged]
bink 5y ago
I understand that these licenses are pretty straight forward legally when it's obvious a company is violating the terms. What I've never understood is how these can be enforced when someone puts effort into obfuscating their usage of a covered piece of code. Do the aggrieved parties have a way to request an inspection similar to that used by the Software Alliance?
- newacct583 5y ago
  That's what the "discovery" phase of a law suit is, yes.
  - bink 5y ago
    That makes sense. I was just wondering if these licenses had provisions that would allow bypassing courts where I can imagine this type of violation would be very hard to prove. e.g.: if they were openly using another product with the same or similar license. Everyone always has the right to sue and hope a judge agrees that an audit be performed. But commercial software organizations can do so without a rigorous process (not that that's a good thing).
    - runnerup 5y ago
      I suspect you're onto something here and that if a company did a good job of obfuscating their use of an AGPL backend, they could protect themselves from discovery. Without existing evidence, it seems unlikely to me that a judge wouldnt agree to throwing out the case before discovery with a motion to dismiss. I'd love if a good lawyer could weigh in.
- whateveracct 5y ago
  I'd imagine the normal civil lawsuit processes would apply?
- kadoban 5y ago
  You can probably just sue and figure it out for sure during discovery? (I'm not a lawyer)
randombits0 5y ago
So, if I understand the license correctly, anything you produce with the product becomes AGPLed and distributable to the users? That’s crazy. That’s like saying every Word doc I produce is now AGPLed. Or do I misunderstand something?
- hairofadog 5y ago
  The software. Not the content.
  - randombits0 5y ago
    So what was modified? Anything the author could see would be “content”.
    - hairofadog 5y ago
      My guess would be CSS, JavaScript, and that sort of thing. It's possible they did some actual engineering work; if it was me, I would be concerned about people trying to bring the site down. I would guess they're also trying to make it a fundraising vehicle, so maybe some changes related to that? I'm not familiar with the Mastodon codebase so it's difficult to speculate but these would be my guesses.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      > So what was modified? Anything the author could see would be “content”. Modifications to views, models, stylesheets, &c. would all fall under the AGPL's definition of source code and would be considered sufficient for triggering the distribution clause.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > Or do I misunderstand something? The AGPL is identical to the GPL, but with one additional clause: if you use the modified software to provide a networked service (like a website), then you must distribute your modifications. That's all. You can use AGPL'd software to produce content without fear that that content will be encumbered, since you're not providing a networked service through that content. That's why your documents are safe, even in the (unlikely) event that your word processor is AGPL.
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
So basically the question boils down to AGPL requirement to make source code available to users? That shouldn't be a problem at all.
- whateveracct 5y ago
  Apparently it was!
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    Likely, the cause is simple ignorance. Modern developers of certain age just use whatever code they can fork from GitHub, think about licenses later (if ever).
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      > Likely, the cause is simple ignorance. Modern developers of certain age just use whatever code they can fork from GitHub, think about licenses later (if ever). Sure, that's entirely possible. Nobody has attributed malicious intent to them. But the terms of the AGPL are clear.
      - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        The author of the article phrased it like this: " Once caught in the act, Trump's Group scrambled and took the site down." I think that implies malicious intent ("caught in the act" - you "catch" criminals).
        bink 5y ago
        There was a lot else going on at the same time. There were users creating parody accounts for famous politicians and the site was only intended for testing. I think they would've taken it down regardless of the license issue.
        woodruffw 5y ago
AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
So this is basically an attempt to silence a politician. It's about as far as can be from the ideal of free software.
- Aloha 5y ago
  If you want to play in someone elses sandbox with their toys, you gotta follow their rules. Like, this is society and contracts 101, I get it that no one likes it when it cuts against the group that happen to like, but its fair, and right there in the terms of the license.
- eropple 5y ago
  So there's an obligation for developers of free software to provide it to people who don't adhere to the licenses in question? Interesting take. Who else do you obligate to free work?
- mackal 5y ago
  Just because he's a "politician" doesn't mean he can violate the license.
- chuckee 5y ago
  How does sharing code silence him?
- gambiting 5y ago
  Do you think that just because someone is a politician they should be given a completely and totally unlimited freedom to do and say whatever they want? What if you're a politician literally running a platform based on genocide? On taking away voting rights from women? On bringing back child labour? On making slavery legal? Should every platform be forced to host you and your views? Or is there a line where you'd go "ok, yeah, actually I can agree with this". Because if there is a line anywhere, then I don't see how you can still hold a view that free software should always support everyone and their beliefs, politicians or not.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
nikkinana 5y ago
Nobody cares. Where's Hacker News source code asshole?
willvarfar 5y ago
I don’t get why this kind of thing keeps happening. It’s on a par with organizing a press conference outside an industry lot. It takes relatively little money to bring in competent programmers to do things properly.
- AWildC182 5y ago
  How many competent programmers (including being reasonable to work with) do you know who would willingly work for their campaign?
  - trutannus 5y ago
    Contractors from a country that does not give a fig about American politics? So plenty of options are on the table.
    - AWildC182 5y ago
      But... But... That would go against what their platform says!
      - isomorphic 5y ago
        /s, I know, but: A platform is a mechanism to obtain power, not a prescription for how power is practiced.
    - theshadowknows 5y ago
      I dunno most contractors like to get paid. I’m not sure but the Trump company does sort of have a history of not paying workers. I’m not arguing whether or not they should’ve. But it is kind of a _thing_
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Kafkish 5y ago
      But those would then be immigrants, right? And likely will need to come in under H1B or something. How will owners of that platform react to hiring to immigrants?
RNCTX 5y ago
> I invented that network source code disclosure provision of the AGPL — the copyleft license later applied to the Mastodon software &mdash: This is just perfect. The blog post much like the FSF, is far less interested in an end result that works, and far more interested in threatening / filing lawsuits. In that they have a social platform not many people use but a lot of people are talking about filing a lawsuit about, and a blog post about the issue that doesn't render html character codes properly but also talks a lot about hypothetical lawsuits. Never change, guys.
- cure 5y ago
  I'll give you the html character thing, that's a bit sloppy. But "far more interested in threatening / filing lawsuits" couldn't be further from the truth. Check out how short the list of past lawsuits is at https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/past-lawsuits.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/past-lawsuits..... If you read up a bit on software freedom conservancy, you'll notice that threatening / filing lawsuits is something they do as a very last resort. You'll also notice that when they do file a suit, there are no monetary damages requested, only license compliance (cf. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
fnord77 5y ago
> Trump's Group has 30 days to remedy the violation, or their rights in the software are permanently terminated Not to be political, but his administration routinely ignored the rule of law for matters much more serious than a software license.
aazaa 5y ago
> I and my colleagues at Software Freedom Conservancy are experts at investigating non-compliance with copyleft license and enforcing those licenses once we confirm the violations. We will be following this issue very closely and demanding that Trump's Group give the Corresponding Source to all who use the site. What standing does the Software Freedom Conservancy have to do pursue this in court themselves? Are they authors of Mastodon? AFAICT, unless one of the Mastodon authors gets involved, this is not going to amount to much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) This article doesn't even establish whether a commercial license to Mastodon (which would render the AGPL moot) had been obtained by Truth Social or not.
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  > AFAICT, unless one of the Mastodon authors gets involved, this is not going to amount to much. That's actually irrelevant as I understand the FOSS license issues around GPL and AGPL. You, as an individual, are entitle to the source code of GPL'd and AGPL'd software (under various circumstances). Suppose I sell or otherwise provide you a program that's based on GPL'd code but only in compiled form. You can request the source from me and I'm obligated to provide it, the original programmers never have to get involved.
  - aazaa 5y ago
    Not from what I understand. Your copyright (by default) gives you standing. If you hold no copyright, you have no standing to claim copyright infringement.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      It seems like you may be right [1] 1. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/52/what-can-should-i-do-when-i-see-a-violation-to-gpl-restrictions https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/52/what-can-s...
- whateveracct 5y ago
  > What standing does the Software Freedom Conservancy have to do pursue this in court themselves? Are they authors of Mastodon? They are users of software built on AGPL (Mastodon) and therefore have a right to have access to that source code.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
Is this the same platform that's going public via SPAC [1]? [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/spac-tied-trumps-new-social-media-deal-extends-rally-2021-10-22/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/spac-tied-trumps-new-soci...
- Kafkish 5y ago
  No, but the platform is just part of the company - Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). In the future, TMTG intends to take on all the major tech outfits on the planet - AWS, Azure, Netflix, you name it.
  - riffic 5y ago
    I love how they think they can simply pivot from a hosted Mastodon installation into being a major public cloud. No one's going to want to work for these folks. This has "hostile working environment" written all over it.
    - Hamuko 5y ago
      Well, Amazon went from selling books on the Internet to running most of it, so maybe that wouldn't be that weird of a pivot.
      - NicoJuicy 5y ago
        It's just a fork, one click on GitHub.
    - rdsubhas 5y ago
      They don't need to. They just need to get in power, blatantly abuse it to broker contracts for the govt, and then sublease it to anyone they like.
    - mpfundstein 5y ago
      i would. and i dont necessarily think the work environment would be hostile. how do you think life is for a conservative at FAANG?
Kafkish 5y ago
> Once caught in the act, Trump's Group scrambled and took the site down. Did they take the site down because of licensing issue or because it was badly configured, so exposed it to bad actors? I think all evidence points to the latter.
goodfight 5y ago
Saw Ian and Tim argue about this on Timcast IRL last night. Hope these license issues can be resolved
cbanek 5y ago
As someone who doesn't jive with those politics, but I have to think though that they missed a real opportunity to just share the source. That'd be "the truth", that'd prove that social media companies aren't just hard coded to be echo chambers by some kind of evil political robot, but yet the dark patterns are hidden in code that isn't nearly so obvious. Plus it would show they weren't trying to do anything evil with the results? I don't imagine they will be making money with the tech anyway, it would probably end up being advertising?
- k4c9x 5y ago
  They've already made a ton of money [1]. I'm sure there will be a few more false starts to grab some more, and then it will just end up in the grift recycling bin for reuse in 2024. [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/spac-tied-trumps-new-social-media-deal-extends-rally-2021-10-22/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/spac-tied-trumps-new-soci...
kosolam 5y ago
The guy that wrote it is a real douchebag
readflaggedcomm 5y ago
>Early evidence strongly supports that Trump's Group publicly launched a so-called “test site” of their “Truth Social” product, based on the AGPLv3'd Mastodon software platform. No citation given. It would have made more sense to use a friendlier project, anyway, like Pleroma. But no evidence is needed to be outraged by something that hasn't happened yet. Sad!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Kafkish 5y ago
By the time all this is settled, Trump and Co will learn a lot about software licensing than they thought was necessary. This is not a space where you can bully others, because the playing field is kinda level.
pmontra 5y ago
If they installed and configured Mastodon they can link Mastodon's repo and let people access the code there. If they made some changes they have to let people access their code, a git repo or a tarball, anything will do.
chmod775 5y ago
There seems to be no end to this saga and I'm all out of popcorn.
tonfreed 5y ago
It's interesting that the article admits they weren't meant to have access to the instance, that makes them unauthorised users. Meaning the users would have been in violation of the computer abuse act.
MichaelRazum 5y ago
Honestly, is it that hard to make that thing from scratch? I mean Facebook started by just one student… and he didn’t had the technology available today.
- rpdillon 5y ago
  Mastodon (https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/ https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/) is built on Rails and appears to have taken 10k+ commits over several years to build. Comparable products include Pleroma (https://github.com/Hostdon/pleroma/ https://github.com/Hostdon/pleroma/), which has 12k+ commits, and Friendica (https://github.com/friendica/friendica https://github.com/friendica/friendica) is a bit older, and has about 32k+ commits. Based on those projects, I'd say the evidence suggests it's a fair amount of work.
  - MichaelRazum 5y ago
    My point is, if you focus on the core features. Lets say something like twitter, it seems to be not THAT hard on the backend side. Sure then you optimize your GUI for different devices that may need a bit more work. But I would say a minimal simple version can be done in few months. How long did it take Zuckerberg to create facebook with php again…?
    - npteljes 5y ago
      If you begin a software project like this, it's wise to consider the existing solutions. In this case, it looks like something off-the-shelf fit the bill. Why not use it? Why not use their expertise that matured over time? Why repeat rookie mistakes with a home-baked solution? These are the things to consider.
      - MichaelRazum 5y ago
        Why not use it? Why not use their expertise that matured over time? Not sure, maybe it is a the right way but maybe you would not be able to move fast forward after the launch. Why repeat rookie mistakes with a home-baked solution? Actually I think in an early stage it would be good for a team to make some mistakes and to learn. If it really has to compete with facebook or twitter I just don't think that using an open source solution is the right way.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
naveen99 5y ago
Interesting that while hackernews, wsb were heavily downvoting DWAC on day 1 of trading, Bloomberg had several articles on it. Matt Levine and the markets are too important to censor thankfully. If Robinhood, tdameritrade, fidelity , nasdaq, and nyse canceled trump, I’d consider to just pack up and move to China. Dang, PG: please exercise some editorial control against these futile attempts to limit discussion on trump (though it only lasted about 2 days on hn)

237 points by riffic 5y ago

tl;dr: Software Freedom Conservancy is issuing tfg a thirty-day ultimatum. Remedy the violation, or their rights in the software are permanently terminated

quotemstr 5y ago
And of course this is really about software freedom and they would take a similarly hard line with anyone using the software
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > And of course this is really about software freedom and they would take a similarly hard line with anyone using the software The SFC is a relatively well known software freedom advocacy and watchdog group, one with 15 years of legal action under its belt. Are you implying that this action somehow breaks the mould with their prior work?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hairofadog 5y ago
  Anyone breaking the terms of the software, sure. Seems fair.
- voz_ 5y ago
  I'm fine with special rules for fascists and traitors.
  - qaq 5y ago
    You are fine with it as long as people who decide who's a fascist are from a camp you support.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    Be careful with that, it might turn out that you yourself is a fascist. Fascists in my country do not know that they are fascists, I'm pretty sure it happens in other countries too.
    - jokethrowaway 5y ago
      A very small number of people are fascists. It's just name calling your enemy to incite your people to punch them. Do the fascists in your country want a totalitarian one party dictatorship, racism and war against other countries? If so, they should know they're fascists and they will be more than happy to tell you so. I've talked to fascists and they're unapologetic - everyone else you call fascist is just your political enemy and you're slandering them.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        > Do the fascists in your country want a totalitarian one party dictatorship, racism and war against other countries? If so, they should know they're fascists and they will be more than happy to tell you so. Oh, my sweet summer child! They do want most of those things (dictatorship, one party rule, war, less so on racism, which is not a hard requirement anyway), but they believe that fascists are their enemies!
    - gfodor 5y ago
      One good indicator of if someone is a fascist is that if they actually stop being in charge for reasons other than death or military defeat they are not a fascist.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        That would exclude obvious fascists like Pinochet.
        gfodor 5y ago
        Even if Pinochet was a fascist, it is hardly "obvious." Dictators may step down. Fascist dictators, not so much. Trump could have kicked off a civil war and retained his power past the deadline with one or two sentences. If he is a fascist, he is a fairly uncommitted one.
- eropple 5y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter; unlike the active protection considerations of trademark, copyright and licensing are in no way obligated to be applied evenly. I trust you're not surprised that it turns out that folks who are considered to be generally bad-faith actors--or, y'know, literal-not-figurative fascists, no matter how ineffectual they are--get less leash than your average person.
  - jimbob45 5y ago
    >copyright and licensing are in no way obligated to be applied evenly That's interesting. Is that why Apple is getting a pass for giving some app developers sweetheart deals on their App Store?
    - mulmen 5y ago
      No. They get a pass because it is their App Store. Sweetheart deals are also known as doing business.
- klyrs 5y ago
  Also this week, they announced action against Vizio for a GPL violation. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28920954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28920954
- lghh 5y ago
  Seems reasonable that someone would enforce their license that prevents use of their software for someone they specifically don't want using their software.
- yodon 5y ago
  Do you have evidence the FSF has commonly ignored prominent license violations in the past that would make it surprising for them to take action here? If not, please refrain from casting unsubstantiated aspersions.
- gfodor 5y ago
  Feels to me like if this goes to court there's a good chance the AGPL will be thrown out as-is. Otherwise, it means that if an engineer accidentally pushes a configuration error to a firewall for a few minutes, and one individual happens to hit the site while it is exposed, suddenly the company has to disclose all of its IP. This seems relatively insane, so if they're going to push on it so hard to make a political statement it may on net be worse to see it be thrown out. You know damn well this will go to court before Trump's army of lawyers concedes and releases any source code. And, as usual, it is going to revolting to see tribalism consume everything - I suppose it was a matter of time before supporting the GPL became a "blue or red team" position.
  - adrr 5y ago
    Default copyright law doesn’t allow for copying the source. AGPL provides people with more rights than the default. Assuming it is a registered copyright, if AGPL license is found invalid then copyright owner could file for statutory damages which could be quite high.
  - onionisafruit 5y ago
    If it's decided that AGPL isn't a valid license, that will mean that Trump's org and most of the rest of us have no license to use Mastadon and thousands of other software projects.
    - gfodor 5y ago
      Correct. I'm not sure of your point. This would obviously be immediately rectified with a new version that addresses any judgement.
      - onionisafruit 5y ago
        I had no point. It's just interesting to consider the fallout from that. Some projects could relicense as you say if they have consent from all of their copyright owners, but other projects aren't in a position to do that. They have contributors who can't be contacted or wouldn't be willing to relicense their work.
- Kye 5y ago
  You're implying some hypocrisy that I haven't seen. Who is the other person/organization that violated the license of open source code but got off without criticism? Even huge tech companies obey the licenses of the open source software they use. Every proprietary tool I use has a long list of code used with the required preamble for each even if it's the same one, licenses (mostly MIT and similar), and where to find it.
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
I'm not quite sure that AGPL can be "permanently terminated".
- monocasa 5y ago
  From the AGPL itself: > 8. Termination. > You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11). > However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation. > Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice. > Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same material under section 10.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    And where is the "permanent termination" in here? Once a user ceases a violation, his license is reinstated, _permanently_. Thus, the license can't be _permanently terminated_. Permanent termination means that you will lose the right to use this software forever, without any recourse.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      No, it's reinstated permanently if the copyright holder fails to reply within 60 days of the cessation, (and provisionally entirely on the whim of the copyright holder). The SF Conservancy is openly stating that they don't plan to drop the ball in those ways.

GranPC 5y ago

The thing I don't get is that this new platform hasn't been officially released to users. Are they really required to make the source code available if it's an internal service, before the official launch?

animal_spirits 5y ago
It had been officially released to users for a short period of time before it was taken down, as the article states. Since it was public, that public use of the code needs to be published as it was when it was public.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  No. AGPL requires to provide source code only to users of the server [1]: It requires the operator of a network server to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server. Also, AGPL does not define a method for providing source code, be it publishing on a web server, sending by email, delivering on a floppy disk via messenger dogs or printing it on a papyrus and sending it with pigeon mail. And lastly, you claim the service was 'officially released'. According to Trump's official statement, the official launch of a service will be in January. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
zarzavat 5y ago
Internal testing: no. Public testing; yes. Launch and release has no legal meaning, gmail was in beta for years. What matters is who can access it?
ksec 5y ago
That is actually an interesting question. Does a non-user of a services have the right to request for the source under the current AGPL 3 legal framework?

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

There is a potential (perhaps small) for this to backfire spectacularly for the SF Conservancy. Here is the scenario. Trump doesn’t comply even after the letter. The SF Conservancy files a lawsuit. It goes to court, and Trump loses. It keeps getting appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court (1/3 of whom were appointed by Trump) rules that copyleft licenses are unenforceable. GPL, AFGPL dead.

blitzar 5y ago
Yeah but then hollywood dead, music industry dead, patents dead, industry dead. America dead. Aint gonna happen.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
  How would ending copyleft license hurt Hollywood? I am not talking about copyright, which you are correct would be massively disruptive. I am talking about copyleft such as GPL, etc which as far as I know have never been really tested in a US court of law.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
You may not like all the decisions the Supreme Court makes, but those three justices are not Trump's puppets. And even if they were, then the decision should still be 6-3 against Trump. So I think your scenario is pretty much dead.
r00fus 5y ago
This is extremely unlikely. Copyleft intrinsically hinges copyright. More likely, if there was some judge that ruled against this case they'd carve out something in the specific scenario here rather than GPL/copyleft in general - that would open up too many cans of worms.

Animats 5y ago

Trump's thing is running on Mastodon? That's unexpected. What changes have they made that need to be redistributed?

not2b 5y ago
The site has to offer a mechanism to download the source code of the version of Mastodon that is being run, including any modifications. The claim here is that they did not do that, so they are infringing.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  Is that requirement only for sites that have modified the source code? E.g. if I use Mastodon but change nothing at all, do I still have to host a repo somewhere with the source?
  - ragebol 5y ago
    Yes. Or make it available for download some other way. The license text is quite clear.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      Why not simply download it from the mastodon website?
      - ragebol 5y ago
        then you have to link to it. But I think that if somehow Mastodon stops making code available (which would be unlikely), you still have provide source code, as long as you run it.
  - deadbunny 5y ago
    If you're running with no modification you'd still need to link back to the source code. Likely the mastadon repo in this example.

deadalus 5y ago

Gab also used Mastodon but they don't anymore anymore. They did run as a Mastodon instance[1], but after being blocked from most instances and even at the software level by most Mastodon apps, they stopped using Mastodon and wrote their own new backend that does not federate. Gab has also been banned from Fdroid[2]. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/12/20691957/mastodon-decentralized-social-network-gab-migration-fediverse-app-blocking https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/12/20691957/mastodon-decentr... [2] https://reclaimthenet.org/f-droid-bans-gab-app/ https://reclaimthenet.org/f-droid-bans-gab-app/

vadfa 5y ago
It's pathetic all they did to Gab and it shows how biased the open source community at large is.
- scrollaway 5y ago
  “Biased”. As if your own point of view isn’t. People have their limits. Most people aren’t absolutists, taking their philosophy to the extreme and utterly unable to make exceptions to their rules when egregious examples show up. Turns out, most people don’t just dislike gab, they think it’s dangerous not to take action and don’t want to be on the eventual wall of people who Did Nothing when retrospection comes. That’s not really bias, it’s called having a moral compass. You’re free to disagree with its tuning of course.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    People are either for free speech or against it. If a site that states "supporting free speech" as reason for their existence decides against free speech, it is disappointing. Of course everybody can decide what they want, but it can still be disappointing and a betrayal of trust.
  - vadfa 5y ago
    [flagged]

bink 5y ago

I understand that these licenses are pretty straight forward legally when it's obvious a company is violating the terms. What I've never understood is how these can be enforced when someone puts effort into obfuscating their usage of a covered piece of code. Do the aggrieved parties have a way to request an inspection similar to that used by the Software Alliance?

newacct583 5y ago
That's what the "discovery" phase of a law suit is, yes.
- bink 5y ago
  That makes sense. I was just wondering if these licenses had provisions that would allow bypassing courts where I can imagine this type of violation would be very hard to prove. e.g.: if they were openly using another product with the same or similar license. Everyone always has the right to sue and hope a judge agrees that an audit be performed. But commercial software organizations can do so without a rigorous process (not that that's a good thing).
  - runnerup 5y ago
    I suspect you're onto something here and that if a company did a good job of obfuscating their use of an AGPL backend, they could protect themselves from discovery. Without existing evidence, it seems unlikely to me that a judge wouldnt agree to throwing out the case before discovery with a motion to dismiss. I'd love if a good lawyer could weigh in.
whateveracct 5y ago
I'd imagine the normal civil lawsuit processes would apply?
kadoban 5y ago
You can probably just sue and figure it out for sure during discovery? (I'm not a lawyer)

randombits0 5y ago

So, if I understand the license correctly, anything you produce with the product becomes AGPLed and distributable to the users? That’s crazy. That’s like saying every Word doc I produce is now AGPLed. Or do I misunderstand something?

hairofadog 5y ago
The software. Not the content.
- randombits0 5y ago
  So what was modified? Anything the author could see would be “content”.
  - hairofadog 5y ago
    My guess would be CSS, JavaScript, and that sort of thing. It's possible they did some actual engineering work; if it was me, I would be concerned about people trying to bring the site down. I would guess they're also trying to make it a fundraising vehicle, so maybe some changes related to that? I'm not familiar with the Mastodon codebase so it's difficult to speculate but these would be my guesses.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > So what was modified? Anything the author could see would be “content”. Modifications to views, models, stylesheets, &c. would all fall under the AGPL's definition of source code and would be considered sufficient for triggering the distribution clause.
woodruffw 5y ago
> Or do I misunderstand something? The AGPL is identical to the GPL, but with one additional clause: if you use the modified software to provide a networked service (like a website), then you must distribute your modifications. That's all. You can use AGPL'd software to produce content without fear that that content will be encumbered, since you're not providing a networked service through that content. That's why your documents are safe, even in the (unlikely) event that your word processor is AGPL.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

So basically the question boils down to AGPL requirement to make source code available to users? That shouldn't be a problem at all.

whateveracct 5y ago
Apparently it was!
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Likely, the cause is simple ignorance. Modern developers of certain age just use whatever code they can fork from GitHub, think about licenses later (if ever).
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > Likely, the cause is simple ignorance. Modern developers of certain age just use whatever code they can fork from GitHub, think about licenses later (if ever). Sure, that's entirely possible. Nobody has attributed malicious intent to them. But the terms of the AGPL are clear.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      The author of the article phrased it like this: " Once caught in the act, Trump's Group scrambled and took the site down." I think that implies malicious intent ("caught in the act" - you "catch" criminals).
      - bink 5y ago
        There was a lot else going on at the same time. There were users creating parody accounts for famous politicians and the site was only intended for testing. I think they would've taken it down regardless of the license issue.
      - woodruffw 5y ago

AlgorithmicTime 5y ago

So this is basically an attempt to silence a politician. It's about as far as can be from the ideal of free software.

Aloha 5y ago
If you want to play in someone elses sandbox with their toys, you gotta follow their rules. Like, this is society and contracts 101, I get it that no one likes it when it cuts against the group that happen to like, but its fair, and right there in the terms of the license.
eropple 5y ago
So there's an obligation for developers of free software to provide it to people who don't adhere to the licenses in question? Interesting take. Who else do you obligate to free work?
mackal 5y ago
Just because he's a "politician" doesn't mean he can violate the license.
chuckee 5y ago
How does sharing code silence him?
gambiting 5y ago
Do you think that just because someone is a politician they should be given a completely and totally unlimited freedom to do and say whatever they want? What if you're a politician literally running a platform based on genocide? On taking away voting rights from women? On bringing back child labour? On making slavery legal? Should every platform be forced to host you and your views? Or is there a line where you'd go "ok, yeah, actually I can agree with this". Because if there is a line anywhere, then I don't see how you can still hold a view that free software should always support everyone and their beliefs, politicians or not.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

nikkinana 5y ago

Nobody cares. Where's Hacker News source code asshole?

willvarfar 5y ago

I don’t get why this kind of thing keeps happening. It’s on a par with organizing a press conference outside an industry lot. It takes relatively little money to bring in competent programmers to do things properly.

AWildC182 5y ago
How many competent programmers (including being reasonable to work with) do you know who would willingly work for their campaign?
- trutannus 5y ago
  Contractors from a country that does not give a fig about American politics? So plenty of options are on the table.
  - AWildC182 5y ago
    But... But... That would go against what their platform says!
    - isomorphic 5y ago
      /s, I know, but: A platform is a mechanism to obtain power, not a prescription for how power is practiced.
  - theshadowknows 5y ago
    I dunno most contractors like to get paid. I’m not sure but the Trump company does sort of have a history of not paying workers. I’m not arguing whether or not they should’ve. But it is kind of a _thing_
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Kafkish 5y ago
    But those would then be immigrants, right? And likely will need to come in under H1B or something. How will owners of that platform react to hiring to immigrants?

RNCTX 5y ago

> I invented that network source code disclosure provision of the AGPL — the copyleft license later applied to the Mastodon software &mdash: This is just perfect. The blog post much like the FSF, is far less interested in an end result that works, and far more interested in threatening / filing lawsuits. In that they have a social platform not many people use but a lot of people are talking about filing a lawsuit about, and a blog post about the issue that doesn't render html character codes properly but also talks a lot about hypothetical lawsuits. Never change, guys.

cure 5y ago
I'll give you the html character thing, that's a bit sloppy. But "far more interested in threatening / filing lawsuits" couldn't be further from the truth. Check out how short the list of past lawsuits is at https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/past-lawsuits.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/past-lawsuits..... If you read up a bit on software freedom conservancy, you'll notice that threatening / filing lawsuits is something they do as a very last resort. You'll also notice that when they do file a suit, there are no monetary damages requested, only license compliance (cf. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

fnord77 5y ago

> Trump's Group has 30 days to remedy the violation, or their rights in the software are permanently terminated Not to be political, but his administration routinely ignored the rule of law for matters much more serious than a software license.

aazaa 5y ago

> I and my colleagues at Software Freedom Conservancy are experts at investigating non-compliance with copyleft license and enforcing those licenses once we confirm the violations. We will be following this issue very closely and demanding that Trump's Group give the Corresponding Source to all who use the site. What standing does the Software Freedom Conservancy have to do pursue this in court themselves? Are they authors of Mastodon? AFAICT, unless one of the Mastodon authors gets involved, this is not going to amount to much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) This article doesn't even establish whether a commercial license to Mastodon (which would render the AGPL moot) had been obtained by Truth Social or not.

Jtsummers 5y ago
> AFAICT, unless one of the Mastodon authors gets involved, this is not going to amount to much. That's actually irrelevant as I understand the FOSS license issues around GPL and AGPL. You, as an individual, are entitle to the source code of GPL'd and AGPL'd software (under various circumstances). Suppose I sell or otherwise provide you a program that's based on GPL'd code but only in compiled form. You can request the source from me and I'm obligated to provide it, the original programmers never have to get involved.
- aazaa 5y ago
  Not from what I understand. Your copyright (by default) gives you standing. If you hold no copyright, you have no standing to claim copyright infringement.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    It seems like you may be right [1] 1. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/52/what-can-should-i-do-when-i-see-a-violation-to-gpl-restrictions https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/52/what-can-s...
whateveracct 5y ago
> What standing does the Software Freedom Conservancy have to do pursue this in court themselves? Are they authors of Mastodon? They are users of software built on AGPL (Mastodon) and therefore have a right to have access to that source code.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

Is this the same platform that's going public via SPAC [1]? [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/spac-tied-trumps-new-social-media-deal-extends-rally-2021-10-22/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/spac-tied-trumps-new-soci...

Kafkish 5y ago
No, but the platform is just part of the company - Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). In the future, TMTG intends to take on all the major tech outfits on the planet - AWS, Azure, Netflix, you name it.
- riffic 5y ago
  I love how they think they can simply pivot from a hosted Mastodon installation into being a major public cloud. No one's going to want to work for these folks. This has "hostile working environment" written all over it.
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    Well, Amazon went from selling books on the Internet to running most of it, so maybe that wouldn't be that weird of a pivot.
    - NicoJuicy 5y ago
      It's just a fork, one click on GitHub.
  - rdsubhas 5y ago
    They don't need to. They just need to get in power, blatantly abuse it to broker contracts for the govt, and then sublease it to anyone they like.
  - mpfundstein 5y ago
    i would. and i dont necessarily think the work environment would be hostile. how do you think life is for a conservative at FAANG?

Kafkish 5y ago

> Once caught in the act, Trump's Group scrambled and took the site down. Did they take the site down because of licensing issue or because it was badly configured, so exposed it to bad actors? I think all evidence points to the latter.

goodfight 5y ago

Saw Ian and Tim argue about this on Timcast IRL last night. Hope these license issues can be resolved

cbanek 5y ago

As someone who doesn't jive with those politics, but I have to think though that they missed a real opportunity to just share the source. That'd be "the truth", that'd prove that social media companies aren't just hard coded to be echo chambers by some kind of evil political robot, but yet the dark patterns are hidden in code that isn't nearly so obvious. Plus it would show they weren't trying to do anything evil with the results? I don't imagine they will be making money with the tech anyway, it would probably end up being advertising?

k4c9x 5y ago
They've already made a ton of money [1]. I'm sure there will be a few more false starts to grab some more, and then it will just end up in the grift recycling bin for reuse in 2024. [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/spac-tied-trumps-new-social-media-deal-extends-rally-2021-10-22/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/spac-tied-trumps-new-soci...

kosolam 5y ago

The guy that wrote it is a real douchebag

readflaggedcomm 5y ago

>Early evidence strongly supports that Trump's Group publicly launched a so-called “test site” of their “Truth Social” product, based on the AGPLv3'd Mastodon software platform. No citation given. It would have made more sense to use a friendlier project, anyway, like Pleroma. But no evidence is needed to be outraged by something that hasn't happened yet. Sad!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Kafkish 5y ago

By the time all this is settled, Trump and Co will learn a lot about software licensing than they thought was necessary. This is not a space where you can bully others, because the playing field is kinda level.

pmontra 5y ago

If they installed and configured Mastodon they can link Mastodon's repo and let people access the code there. If they made some changes they have to let people access their code, a git repo or a tarball, anything will do.

chmod775 5y ago

There seems to be no end to this saga and I'm all out of popcorn.

tonfreed 5y ago

It's interesting that the article admits they weren't meant to have access to the instance, that makes them unauthorised users. Meaning the users would have been in violation of the computer abuse act.

MichaelRazum 5y ago

Honestly, is it that hard to make that thing from scratch? I mean Facebook started by just one student… and he didn’t had the technology available today.

rpdillon 5y ago
Mastodon (https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/ https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/) is built on Rails and appears to have taken 10k+ commits over several years to build. Comparable products include Pleroma (https://github.com/Hostdon/pleroma/ https://github.com/Hostdon/pleroma/), which has 12k+ commits, and Friendica (https://github.com/friendica/friendica https://github.com/friendica/friendica) is a bit older, and has about 32k+ commits. Based on those projects, I'd say the evidence suggests it's a fair amount of work.
- MichaelRazum 5y ago
  My point is, if you focus on the core features. Lets say something like twitter, it seems to be not THAT hard on the backend side. Sure then you optimize your GUI for different devices that may need a bit more work. But I would say a minimal simple version can be done in few months. How long did it take Zuckerberg to create facebook with php again…?
  - npteljes 5y ago
    If you begin a software project like this, it's wise to consider the existing solutions. In this case, it looks like something off-the-shelf fit the bill. Why not use it? Why not use their expertise that matured over time? Why repeat rookie mistakes with a home-baked solution? These are the things to consider.
    - MichaelRazum 5y ago
      Why not use it? Why not use their expertise that matured over time? Not sure, maybe it is a the right way but maybe you would not be able to move fast forward after the launch. Why repeat rookie mistakes with a home-baked solution? Actually I think in an early stage it would be good for a team to make some mistakes and to learn. If it really has to compete with facebook or twitter I just don't think that using an open source solution is the right way.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

naveen99 5y ago

Interesting that while hackernews, wsb were heavily downvoting DWAC on day 1 of trading, Bloomberg had several articles on it. Matt Levine and the markets are too important to censor thankfully. If Robinhood, tdameritrade, fidelity , nasdaq, and nyse canceled trump, I’d consider to just pack up and move to China. Dang, PG: please exercise some editorial control against these futile attempts to limit discussion on trump (though it only lasted about 2 days on hn)