@j@switter.at cc @LuigiEsq
@Gargron @j@switter.at @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
@Gargron @j@switter.at @LuigiEsq Moderation, instance blocks, ToS, and policies (Server Covenant etc.) are effective, and will need to be done anyway.
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
@diggity @j@switter.at @LuigiEsq I agree in the sense that if someone violates AGPLv3 there are multiple established institutions willing to defend it which a custom license does not benefit from
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
@Gargron @j@switter.at @LuigiEsq Yep. I got to this thread late but we're all in agreement.
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.