4 ms·

I find this part very concerning. I held my nose and voted "against" Trump both times. I don't like the guy. But I really don't like IP trolls. Software patent

by Igelau 5y ago

I find this part very concerning. I held my nose and voted "against" Trump both times. I don't like the guy. But I really don't like IP trolls. Software patents. SCO. The RIAA. "You wouldn't download a car." The aggression with which people are picking up the pitchforks over this is shocking. It was a test. It was a mistake. People weren't supposed to see it or use it, and it's not up anymore. What damage was even done? It leaves a foul smell around AGPL-licensed projects and Mastodon. I'm deeply discouraged from ever hosting a Mastodon instance if any changes I make to the source are going to summon a lynch mob if I haven't made them public within hours, especially if it's only a test deployment. Even if you think Trump and his fan base are total monsters, don't go forgetting what Nietzsche said about fighting monsters.

evolve2k 5y ago
You put it up on a public domain and have open signups, it’s public.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  the AGPL license grants rights only to server users. General 'public' has no business in this. Only those who were able to register on the server may require to be provided with the source code. Note, that the server operator is free to provide the code in ways different from publishing it on GitHub.
headShrinker 5y ago
This isn’t royalties, IP, or trolls. This is licensing and if you don’t like it you can take a hike cause licensing keeps people fair. Without it everyone could and would take everything and anything protected under copyright. I have a right to control the works that I have made. I don’t care who you are, if you blatantly steal my work and claim it as your own you better lawyer up cause I’m coming after you! Just as any software developer would, open-source or not.
- Igelau 5y ago
  > This is licensing and if you don’t like it you can take a hike cause licensing keeps people fair. Without it everyone could and would take everything and anything protected under copyright. Which is exactly what SCO were saying. How soon do we forget how much we hate it when the corporate interests take their turn at bat over licensing? If your license permits you to be "that guy", it's clearly not libre. Maybe no one ever claimed AGPL was libre but this is definitely a huge reminder that it's not. Mind, I'm not arguing that they didn't violate the license. My issue is the ruthless animosity with which people suddenly seem to love aggressive software license enforcement. Maybe I'm too old and crusty, but I would hate to be in a position like this, and would hate to put others in the same position. Especially when all signs point to this being an accidental go-live.
  - resoluteteeth 5y ago
    > Especially when all signs point to this being an accidental go-live. If they're going to use mastodon they might as well start releasing the source code now because they'll have to do it when they launch anyway.
Miner49er 5y ago
It doesn't really matter. If they are gonna run with using Mastodan when the official product launches, soon, they'll have to release the source then anyway. If they scrap using Mastodan, then nothing is lost by releasing the source. They're a billion dollar company ran by a billionaire, they should be held to a higher standard then your average joe, since they have way more resources to do things correctly.

by Igelau 5y ago

evolve2k 5y ago

You put it up on a public domain and have open signups, it’s public.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
the AGPL license grants rights only to server users. General 'public' has no business in this. Only those who were able to register on the server may require to be provided with the source code. Note, that the server operator is free to provide the code in ways different from publishing it on GitHub.

headShrinker 5y ago

This isn’t royalties, IP, or trolls. This is licensing and if you don’t like it you can take a hike cause licensing keeps people fair. Without it everyone could and would take everything and anything protected under copyright. I have a right to control the works that I have made. I don’t care who you are, if you blatantly steal my work and claim it as your own you better lawyer up cause I’m coming after you! Just as any software developer would, open-source or not.

Igelau 5y ago
> This is licensing and if you don’t like it you can take a hike cause licensing keeps people fair. Without it everyone could and would take everything and anything protected under copyright. Which is exactly what SCO were saying. How soon do we forget how much we hate it when the corporate interests take their turn at bat over licensing? If your license permits you to be "that guy", it's clearly not libre. Maybe no one ever claimed AGPL was libre but this is definitely a huge reminder that it's not. Mind, I'm not arguing that they didn't violate the license. My issue is the ruthless animosity with which people suddenly seem to love aggressive software license enforcement. Maybe I'm too old and crusty, but I would hate to be in a position like this, and would hate to put others in the same position. Especially when all signs point to this being an accidental go-live.
- resoluteteeth 5y ago
  > Especially when all signs point to this being an accidental go-live. If they're going to use mastodon they might as well start releasing the source code now because they'll have to do it when they launch anyway.

Miner49er 5y ago

It doesn't really matter. If they are gonna run with using Mastodan when the official product launches, soon, they'll have to release the source then anyway. If they scrap using Mastodan, then nothing is lost by releasing the source. They're a billion dollar company ran by a billionaire, they should be held to a higher standard then your average joe, since they have way more resources to do things correctly.