I quite wonder why some people are trying to do proprietary implementations of ActivityPub software.

Also just to be clear: This instance won’t federate with them.
I know capitalism and shit, but like, more seriously :
- There is libre and gratis implementations that have been there for a long time and can be considered stable
- The fediverse community is very pro-Libre software (the GNU in GnuSocial isn’t for nothing, same for the pile of AGPLv3)

Also “We will release source code later” means it’s closed source, sorry not sorry.
@debbie Honestly you can do a BSD-licensed one, and I could relicense my commits under a BSD-compatible license.
But a proprietary one? Get out of my network.
@debbie I don’t care much about licences honestly, it just needs to be at least BSD-style.
But for networking software I quite like AGPLv3 and for important software (like a kernel), one like GPLv2 where I know it will stay libre is nice too.
But screw license incompatibilities like not being able to put CDDL code into a GPLv2 software.
@lanodan gpl is a violation of freedom. btw licenses are invalid.

Oh hai o/

I have to disagree, GPL and co. are a great bunch of licenses for creators that value community involvement. Insurance that changes made by other people have to be public makes everybody benefit on work done on the project.

Frankly, that means that you cannot have closed sourced stuff based on that, but is that something you would want in that context, where community actively fights against closed software (except Toot app apparently :/)

@hellcp @debbie GPL-2 is fine, GPL-3 isn’t at all specially for Operating System stuff as it basically means it can be used on proprietary systems but not on BSD-licensed systems.

Even damned GPLv3 finds its use in software >:D

@hellcp @debbie It’s not because a license is used that it’s good, heck All Rights Reserved can be considered one and I hate it.
Also the problem with GPL-3 which is unrelated to it as a pure license text is how GPL-2 has the “or later” part, meaning a GPL-2 software could end up being in GPL-3 quite easily, and thus breaking a bunch of compatibility.

The worst part about All Rights Reserved is that it's default state of software by US Law... Meaning that leaving software without license is All Rights Reserved.

@hellcp @debbie Then fix your country.
A non-licensed creation in France is something like the BSD license if I didn’t mess up (IANAL).

Haha, I don't live in US, but it still is primary place for software development ;P

@hellcp @debbie There is no country tag in software development but I could probably easily get rid of any software line written in the US and still have a perfectly working system.

@hellcp @lanodan @debbie

Actually, I think this is actually a Berne Convention thing (which is based on the U.S. model). That is the default for Berne Convention signatory countries.

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!