Chris Webber, the co-editor of ActivityPub (which enables Mastodon, Pleroma, Peertube, etc.) is inventing the next generation protocol for decentralized social games & online collaboration.

It is really important work.

I am convinced that there are institutions out there that would give him a grant to work on this.

Foundations? Boston-area universities? If you know of one, please consider nominating him!

Please boost!

@ricardojmendez do you happen to have one like that for projects that aren't "foundational infrastructure"?

@valerauko I’d say apply and make the case the best you can. The voting committee will use that as a criteria to prioritize, but the application process is simple enough that it’s worth a shot.

@Tryphon Don't be so naïve. Every "institution" that hands out grants wants something in return.

Like Google donated to the dev of Wikidata & can now use its structured data w/o attribution in its Knowledge Graph (due to WD license), treating all WD contributors as unpaid co-workers. (Not to mention they hired former WD chief dev Denny Vrandečić for further in-house dev.)

Chris Webber should keep "developing" ActivityPup on his own & use a license that prohibits economic reuse by 3rd parties.

A perfect example of no strings actually being attached, because the grantor and the grantee have a common interest.

@clacke I don't know whether Google & Wikidata folks have the same common interest -- besides that the employees of Wikimedia working on Wikidata & those of Google earn a salary and the volunteers providing the data don't. But anyway, I guess my main point was that Chris Webber & his co-editors should rather be financed by a GoFundMe/Patreon-style endowment by "the community" than an "institution" whose conditions for a grant will be obnoxious at best.

WIkidata wants to build a public repository of structured knowledge. Google wants to consume and relicense a public repository of structured knowledge. WD was already doing what Google wanted. I don't know what strings were attached, but I don't see that there had to be any.

Lots of grants are awarded because someone wants to have research done in a specific area. If you want to do that research, it's free money. If they do indeed have obnoxious conditions, then avoid those people, but there's no reason to dismiss it beforehand.

@clacke I wouldn't call it "free money" & "no string attached" when due to licensing Google can raise profits w/o much investment. But I grant you that in this game it's a coalition of Google (& others) & Wikimedia, the latter using the work of their volunteers to gain a role in the "knowledge economy". But I presume most of those contributing to Wikipedia (& thus Wikidata) haven't been eager in advance to become unpaid co-workers of Google (& Amazon's Echo, Apple's SIri, IBM's AI development).

@clacke (IBm "trains" its AI via the Wikidata dump of structured data into DBpedia. And really, why should volunteers who are not gonna see any refund or other reward (w/ the exception of some fancy "barnstars" in Wikipedia) help make platforms and software companes solidfy & enlarge their monopolies? That open soucre is a precondition of (& a major driver in) platform capitalism & web centralization seems obvious. No need to support that, IMO.)

@simsa02 wait, you don’t like being told what you should do?

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!