So Gab has decided that their own code that they spent $5M of investor money developing is so unsalvageably bad that they're going to use Mastodon's code instead, with the added bonus of leeching off of our apps (with Gab apps being banned from app stores)
This is an early warning to fellow admins to be vigilant and domain-block them on sight, when/if they appear (unconfirmed whether they intend to federate), and to app devs to consider if blocking Gab's domains from their app is necessary.
@Gargron that's going to make it fairly hard for them to 'gab' with each other on the online web!
@Gargron man imagine ur code base sucking so much mastodon is better than it
@Gargron wonder how feasible it is to have a LICENSE that explicitly forbids it for being used for hate
When you restrict usage of your software, it's not free/libre open-source software anymore. You are violating Freedom 0: Use software for whatever you want.
Also it's legally hard and people tried that for military etc.
Generally, don't solve a social problem with technology like that. It likely won't work…
It would however be more expensive to enforce a no-hate license, because the nonprofits that provide pro bono support to free software products are fundamentalist about freedom 0.
It may be that the AGPL is the best we can do against gab for now, but we should be unhappy about that
well… as said it's technically not really possible.
I doubt they get really an advantage by using #Mastodon.
Best is just to block them, because that's the advantage we have: all Fediverse admins can decide whether they want to block them, and so they can stay in their bubble and not be promoted.
Also – in case that thing make news (i.e. do not accidentialyl promote it, but reply) – the @Mastodon project can take a clear stance against it.
@LogicalDash @hedders @Gargron @j @LuigiEsq @Mastodon it's not FLOSS then. And this is a philosophical position, I guess.
In the end such a crazy license would do more harm than good, because how do you define "hate speech" or so. (And you cannot really say or enforce "This software should not be used by Nazis.") It's not possible, really, not really so it would not have bad side-effects.
Because then I tell a Nazi to register at your instance of Mastodon, get an bunch of lawyers and let them shut-down your instance. is that what you want?
Okay, you may say then what: Should we define a percentage of Nazi users that are allowed on an instance?
Should we force admins to ban these? If so, in whcich time etc.? If so, how to define a Nazi? …
Sidenote: We also neither have enough laywers or money.
This is what countries can make anti-hate-speech or whatever laws they call it. These can then also be enforced.
But a software license is not a state. I don't want a software license that defines what a Nazi is in my software. Wtf… no…
Just don't give them credit and stay away.
and as said, it is against the principles of FLOSS and the GPL. See their "non-military" question about a similar issue people have: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#NoMilitary
So even if it were technically ("legally") made possible in a good way, we don't want that.
@LogicalDash while I agree with this in theory, in practice it gets quite difficult.
For example it's easy to say "Nazis (as defined by me) are not allowed on my email server." But it's very hard for me, the creator of the SMTP and IMAP protocols, to say "Nazis are not allowed to use email." Like the very nature of my creation is an abstract idea that anyone can use. It'd be like the inventor of the hammer saying Nazis can't use hammers. Who's gonna enforce that and how?
@LogicalDash tactically, I'd say it's better to:
- design our software such that it not only benefits freedom and liberation, but is coded in such a way as to lean that way even when someone tries to use it as a weapon (to your point)
- use the "embrace, extend, eliminate" strategy -- it's impossible for me to affect the Gab servers and software, that was 100% private. But I can affect the development of Mastodon software, which now forms the basis of Gab. That's an "in."
an addition: if
@Mastodon wants to make a blog distancing from gab, please *don't* mention their name! This just makes them popular…
Rather condemn what their platform stands for, what people do there, and what behaviour you do not accept.
I guess you can make it very clear what platform is meant without mentioning their name.
Again: Also only do so if needed. E.g. if news outlets want to bring news about this, you should have something ready.
@Gargron @LuigiEsq @j that's true, yes. Relicensing OSS projects with lots of contributors is not straightforward, especially without contributor agreements, and it typically isn't retroactive. There is also the possibility of introducing licence incompatibilities, especially with 3P GPL-licensed code.
@hedders @Gargron @LuigiEsq @j They'll just do what many projects do with AGPL and not be fully compliant (if they try to comply at all). I would expect them to release code though, and say "that's enough, deal with it, pepe frog".
Gab has prominent backers and investment, and the battle to force license compliance would be costly and not approach the over-arching problem.
But, as you said, they can just use code from beforehand or just, y'know, ignore any license and violate its terms... as I stated before, ethical/morality clauses are legally ambiguous and hard to enforce.
@Gargron @j @LuigiEsq Licenses with ethical/morality clauses are very hard to enforce, due in part to issues with legal definition and interpretation (esp. across jurisdictions). JSON license "do no evil" clause is the most prominent example, but there are others.
Licenses will not help resolve this problem, which must be solved by the mechanisms most Mastodon instances (and maston.social, joinmastodon.org, and Mastodon client apps) are now using... 1/2
Enforcement of copyleft license terms (GPL, AGPL, CC BY-SA etc.) is already extremely hard and requires money and legal resources.
License proliferation (e.g. not choosing AGPL for Mastodon) only causes friction for FOSS collaboration. It hurts devs and makes a mess that is difficult to clean up... which will only harm the Fediverse and limit use. 2/2
I think I've also mentioned elsewhere in the thread that re-licensing Mastodon is practically very hard due to no CLA and about 600 contributors
I just *really* would hate to see a new license for Mastodon, it has been very successful under AGPL and will continue to be.
Historically, Gab will be a blip on the Mastodon radar... they may not even make the codebase switch. The devs are obviously sloppy AF and now that client apps like Tusky, Sengi etc will block their instance (rickrolling too!), Masto won't solve the primary problem Gab thought it would.
@licho that's true. I am the one responsible for my instance.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!