5 ms·

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://techcrun

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.
      - imilk 5y ago
        Especially when their so called "Technical Team" purports to have experience from 2 dozen different established tech companies.
      - hunterb123 5y ago
        That's exactly how this works, the burden did fall on them, and they corrected the mistake. You enforce your license, people comply. Ideally they know to comply in the first place, but a letter isn't too much trouble to inform them. Only if they defy that should anyone hold ill will.
        imilk 5y ago
        If a vendor creating IP/code for your company violates a license, your company violates the license. It can even be as simple as a contractor using an image that they don't have a license for. If they upload the image on your website/use it anywhere public, you are liable. Recently had a client that had to pay out $30k because one of their contractors did exactly that. This is very basic stuff and makes me wonder if you've ever worked in a vendor/client relationship before.
        JohnTHaller 5y ago
        The account you're responding to is named "hunterb123", so they may not be reading and responding in earnest. UPDATE: As expected, they proved my point in their response "I'd just worry about the content of my post and not about my name or laptops."
        hunterb123 5y ago
    - JohnTHaller 5y ago
      The license is very clearly included in the code they originally stole and tried to pass off as their own. This wasn't a short timeline as they'd been including it in investment decks for quite some time before release. This is super basic copyright and licensing stuff. And something that a legitimate company with nearly a billion dollars in funding should know.

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.
    - imilk 5y ago
      Especially when their so called "Technical Team" purports to have experience from 2 dozen different established tech companies.
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      That's exactly how this works, the burden did fall on them, and they corrected the mistake. You enforce your license, people comply. Ideally they know to comply in the first place, but a letter isn't too much trouble to inform them. Only if they defy that should anyone hold ill will.
      - imilk 5y ago
        If a vendor creating IP/code for your company violates a license, your company violates the license. It can even be as simple as a contractor using an image that they don't have a license for. If they upload the image on your website/use it anywhere public, you are liable. Recently had a client that had to pay out $30k because one of their contractors did exactly that. This is very basic stuff and makes me wonder if you've ever worked in a vendor/client relationship before.
        JohnTHaller 5y ago
        The account you're responding to is named "hunterb123", so they may not be reading and responding in earnest. UPDATE: As expected, they proved my point in their response "I'd just worry about the content of my post and not about my name or laptops."
        hunterb123 5y ago
  - JohnTHaller 5y ago
    The license is very clearly included in the code they originally stole and tried to pass off as their own. This wasn't a short timeline as they'd been including it in investment decks for quite some time before release. This is super basic copyright and licensing stuff. And something that a legitimate company with nearly a billion dollars in funding should know.