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


Because Mastodon does not have a Copyright License Agreement (CLA) that contributors have to sign before submitting code, I am not the sole copyright holder of the Mastodon source code--rather, contributors keep rights to their parts. As such, violation of AGPLv3 is not just a violation of my own rights, but of all past contributors to Mastodon.

@Gargron doesn't that imply it'll have to be re-implemented clean in the future anyways?

@Gargron yes but courts weigh prayers for relief appropriately. someone who controls major parts of the source will have a better case.

@kaniini @Gargron Actually, that was the problem Christoph Hellwig had in its attempt to sue VMware: The German court wasn't willing to believe Hellwig had created a significant part of the Linux kernel.


@schmittlauch @Gargron

precisely. that's why really Gargron or maybe Thib need to do it.

@Gargron if you want to set up the liberapay/catarse/etc. legal fund now let us know so we can start contributing for legal fees.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

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!