8 ms·

Clone, as in a re-skinned version. But my main point is the irony of releasing a pitch deck like this [1], and just adding some custom CSS to popular open sourc

• tnzk 5y ago
  Would their server federate with other servers?
  • imilk 5y ago
    Of course not. They probably just wanted to pay a laughably small amount to make a clone of Twitter. And whether the client asked for it to be done or not, the outsourced development group they hired copied the source code while removing the required attribution.
• hunterb123 5y ago
  So is an instance not allowed to skin itself? Most instances have different designs. Are companies not allowed to compete with Twitter using Mastodon as the platform? Is this not the desired goal for social media companies, to operate within a federated network? You do admit to compete with Twitter you need a lot of resources, that's what the filing you linked to is for.
  • QuikAccount 5y ago
    It is not an instance, it was a clone or if you want to be generous you can call it a fork. A fork that did not abide by the Mastodon license. https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/29/mastodon-issues-30-day-ultimatum-to-trumps-social-network-over-misuse-of-its-code/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/29/mastodon-issues-30-day-ult...
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • Proven 5y ago
    • hunterb123 5y ago
      https://opensource.truthsocial.com/mastodon-current.zip https://opensource.truthsocial.com/mastodon-current.zip
      • JohnTHaller 5y ago
        They capitulated after being called out on the license/copyright violations.
        • hunterb123 5y ago
          Sure, capitulated, or developers did not inform them, the notice did, and they complied. Given the short timeline, couldn't it just be an honest mistake? My point in the reply was to followup on events, the fact they "capitulated" was left out.
          • imilk 5y ago
            Given that they want to be taken seriously as a major social media network and public company, you'd think they'd actually do some development of their own rather than just copying another project.
          • QuikAccount 5y ago
            > developers did not inform them That's not how this works. Mastodon has an AGPL license on their repo. The burden is on you to read and follow the license. If your devs don't tell you they were illegally ripping code then you need better devs. The burden still falls on you.
            • 5y ago
  • imilk 5y ago
    They hired a North Macedonian development group to create a a cheap copy of the Mastodon code and tried to remove all logos & mentions of Mastodon in the source code. It'd be like announcing that you're creating what will be the world's most popular website builder and blogging platform, then spending 10k to just rip off WordPress and thinking job done. It's hilariously inept.
    • mgkimsal 5y ago
      > They hired a North Macedonian development group Way to keep jobs in the USA, I guess? But perhaps this was a 4d-chess move to stay outside of the influence of US/western 'big tech' which 'silences' right wing Truth? Who can tell?
      • imilk 5y ago
        More like them only wanting to spend 5 days worth of a single outsourced coder's time. I can't imagine changing some CSS and find/replace "Mastodon" in the source code took much longer than that. Just look at the "Infrastructure" slide (22) in their deck I posted above. It's like a middle schooler did a book report on web development.
        • mgkimsal 5y ago
          wow yeah that's pretty lame... slide 27 mentions mastodon as the backend for v1... as if they'll have the ability to just swap in something else later with 10M active users...
          • me_me_mu_mu 5y ago
            They'll just use firestore
          • mariamorgan 5y ago
        • mariamorgan 5y ago