Fun fact about the license under which the Mastodon source code is published (AGPL) is that it requires any modifications to it to be published.
No secret sauce, no proprietary features possible. Which is why commercial companies hate this license.
Want to paywall "pro" features? You can, but anyone can take your code and run it on a different server for free.
Anyway, that's quite an interesting financial choice for Gab, a for-profit entity that sells "pro" features
@Gargron Awesome! I've been wondering if anyone used the AGPL in practice. Good on you.
@Gargron I have a feeling they might just pull a jester and just rebase half the commits back without the pro features...
@Gargron enforcement is probably not easy, but i'm sure there will be plenty of people that'll go after gab for free to very affordable
So, I understand that @Gargron violates AGPL license if he locally tests his changes before pushing them to tootsuite/mastodon? Basing on their posts, they didn’t intend to announce it and were surprised by remote follows (and them stating they didn’t intend to make it public would just make the situation even funnier, they wanted to avoid that)
@kaniini ‘I am not the sole copyright holder of the Mastodon source code’
@kaniini I think the fact they changed the link to source code from tootsuite/mastodon to something like gab-ai-inc/gab(-social?) means they will do it. And they stated they will make PRs with their improvements
@kaniini but let’s assume he is, that would mean if I decided to make a code contributing to Mastodon, testing it on a private instance, I can’t do it before pushing the changes
As much as I understand Free software projects trying to keep users safer through domain blocking mechanisms, I think the license enforcement to keep the code Free should take precedence.
@kaniini certainly at this point it would be premature to start a lawsuit. That said a Free project of Mastodon's profile and nature should have resources set aside for the possibility, and the orgs mentioned previously could help advise on how to approach Gab about GPL compliance.
And as repugnant as they are, someone MUST talk to let them and make it known Mastodon is serious about license enforcement.
@kaniini also are they already non-AGPL compliant since they closed reg? I guess one of the existing users would have to request the code by email...
@kaniini They don't seem to federate out, I was trying to provoke the server into revealing its origin IP earlier, no dice. But yeah, I guess having the API up is enough.
@kaniini if you have access to an account, could you do me a favor and look up email@example.com on their search for me? I just want to make sure that'll be the last thing that comes through from their net.
@kaniini ah I mean, they had open reg yesterday, I should've really gotten a test account :/
@kaniini Ah, I vaguely remember that fork-rewriteInNode-OopsBroken thing Moodle did and that you probably don't want to be reminded of 😜
@kaniini I mean, that's exactly what the license says.
What you are apparently talking about is whether that could be enforced in court.
And yeah, … well, maybe not.
I mean as said: it's pointless to discuss this. Because whether or not it is a violation is the court's actual decision.
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!