5 ms·

Antithetical to your values why, because it’s supposedly going to be a free speech website (I’ll believe it when I see it), as opposed to the tightly moderated

by havkd 5y ago

Antithetical to your values why, because it’s supposedly going to be a free speech website (I’ll believe it when I see it), as opposed to the tightly moderated fediverse instances? Or is it just the guy? Or something else? Anyway, it hasn’t launched yet, so why can’t this post wait until then?

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> why can’t this post wait until then? The group announcing signing a merger agreement with a now-two-billion-dollar SPAC [1] is the likely spark. It's an announcement of a change in economic magnitude. That can make previously-ignorable mistakes meaningful to pursue. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/21/trump-linked-spac-shares-soar-more-than-40percent-on-news-of-social-media-deal.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/21/trump-linked-spac-shares-soa...
- havkd 5y ago
  I understand. But can this be fought in court as long as the website doesn’t even exist? There is no indication that the website will infringe on this licence yet… it hasn’t launched yet!
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > can this be fought in court as long as the website doesn’t even exist? The website did exist. Users created accounts and demanded a copy of the source. They were refused, and so the license was infringed. Mastodon isn't threatening legal action. They're asking for that refusal to be reversed, thereby curing the infringement.
    - margalabargala 5y ago
      I had the same question- "Does taking down the website cure the violation?" Here's the relevant clause in GPLv3: > 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. Basically- the website WAS in violation, and Mastodon is within their rights to permanently withdraw the license following their 30-day notice. I think the key here is the difference between "cease violation", with truth.social has done by taking down the site, and "cure the violation", which refers to correcting the earlier violation by distributing the source as it existed at that time. Without "curing" the previous violation, then truth.social cannot launch again with any modified version of Mastodon, as their license will be permanently revoked. That said, there's leeway involved due to truth.social not being intentionally public. On one hand, "people were able to access it and make accounts", on the other hand, gaining access to some company's internal GPL tool because they misconfigured a VPN does not entitle you to source for that tool (and you violated the CFAA). It's a question for the courts, but it probably doesn't really matter because one of three things will happen: 1) truth.social will re-launch with no Mastodon code, and doesn't care if their Mastodon license is revoked. 2) truth.social will re-launch with Mastodon code, will provide their sources, and the whole thing goes away. 3) truth.social will re-launch with Mastodon code, will NOT provide the sources, and Mastodon has a much stronger legal leg to stand on.
    - fdschoeneman 5y ago
      If mastodon is holding all mastodon instance operators to that standard you have a point. Are they?
- fdschoeneman 5y ago
  The licence says "over the network" but it hasn't launched. I realize some people have made test accounts, so I suppose there's an issue there if they've made issues of similar behavior before, but I don't see how the merger agreement is relevant to the license.
micromacrofoot 5y ago
so far most (all?) attempts to create a “conservative” social network end up as sites with large nazi userbases either way, some people are already using the site and the license should apply - the source needs to be available to all of them
- pyronik19 5y ago
  hardly any worse than pure vileness of twitter.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    I get that you're being glib, and I'm not fan of twitter... but openly supporting ethnic genocide is a lot worse than anything going on with twitter.
- randyrand 5y ago
  what site do “the nazis” use now? Do they just keep to themselves? or do they use other nazi forums.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    chan sites, gab, some forums on tor... I'm honestly not sure if they're trying to hurt conservatives or if the continual embedding into conservative social platforms is an attempt to cling to relevancy? I don't think all conservatives are nazis by any means, but I'm not a fan of the "any vote we can get" tactics that are hesitant to admonish white supremacy
    - lorabe 5y ago
      I think they are fusing, conservatives and racism have almost always been correlated, so there is a common ground. Having that said, nazism and republican conservatism are surprisingly different, say, nazis are anti jews, conservatives are anti mexicans. Again, there is a common ground.

by havkd 5y ago

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> why can’t this post wait until then? The group announcing signing a merger agreement with a now-two-billion-dollar SPAC [1] is the likely spark. It's an announcement of a change in economic magnitude. That can make previously-ignorable mistakes meaningful to pursue. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/21/trump-linked-spac-shares-soar-more-than-40percent-on-news-of-social-media-deal.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/21/trump-linked-spac-shares-soa...

havkd 5y ago
I understand. But can this be fought in court as long as the website doesn’t even exist? There is no indication that the website will infringe on this licence yet… it hasn’t launched yet!
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > can this be fought in court as long as the website doesn’t even exist? The website did exist. Users created accounts and demanded a copy of the source. They were refused, and so the license was infringed. Mastodon isn't threatening legal action. They're asking for that refusal to be reversed, thereby curing the infringement.
  - margalabargala 5y ago
    I had the same question- "Does taking down the website cure the violation?" Here's the relevant clause in GPLv3: > 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. Basically- the website WAS in violation, and Mastodon is within their rights to permanently withdraw the license following their 30-day notice. I think the key here is the difference between "cease violation", with truth.social has done by taking down the site, and "cure the violation", which refers to correcting the earlier violation by distributing the source as it existed at that time. Without "curing" the previous violation, then truth.social cannot launch again with any modified version of Mastodon, as their license will be permanently revoked. That said, there's leeway involved due to truth.social not being intentionally public. On one hand, "people were able to access it and make accounts", on the other hand, gaining access to some company's internal GPL tool because they misconfigured a VPN does not entitle you to source for that tool (and you violated the CFAA). It's a question for the courts, but it probably doesn't really matter because one of three things will happen: 1) truth.social will re-launch with no Mastodon code, and doesn't care if their Mastodon license is revoked. 2) truth.social will re-launch with Mastodon code, will provide their sources, and the whole thing goes away. 3) truth.social will re-launch with Mastodon code, will NOT provide the sources, and Mastodon has a much stronger legal leg to stand on.
  - fdschoeneman 5y ago
    If mastodon is holding all mastodon instance operators to that standard you have a point. Are they?
fdschoeneman 5y ago
The licence says "over the network" but it hasn't launched. I realize some people have made test accounts, so I suppose there's an issue there if they've made issues of similar behavior before, but I don't see how the merger agreement is relevant to the license.

micromacrofoot 5y ago

so far most (all?) attempts to create a “conservative” social network end up as sites with large nazi userbases either way, some people are already using the site and the license should apply - the source needs to be available to all of them

pyronik19 5y ago
hardly any worse than pure vileness of twitter.
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  I get that you're being glib, and I'm not fan of twitter... but openly supporting ethnic genocide is a lot worse than anything going on with twitter.
randyrand 5y ago
what site do “the nazis” use now? Do they just keep to themselves? or do they use other nazi forums.
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  chan sites, gab, some forums on tor... I'm honestly not sure if they're trying to hurt conservatives or if the continual embedding into conservative social platforms is an attempt to cling to relevancy? I don't think all conservatives are nazis by any means, but I'm not a fan of the "any vote we can get" tactics that are hesitant to admonish white supremacy
  - lorabe 5y ago
    I think they are fusing, conservatives and racism have almost always been correlated, so there is a common ground. Having that said, nazism and republican conservatism are surprisingly different, say, nazis are anti jews, conservatives are anti mexicans. Again, there is a common ground.