TL;DR: The common view on Meta’s Threads is that it will be either all good or all bad, leading to oversimplified and at the end contra productive propositions like the Fedipact. But in reality, it…

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/12225995

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/12225991

TL;DR: The common view on Meta’s Threads is that it will be either all good or all bad, leading to oversimplified and at the end contra productive propositions like the Fedipact. But in reality, it’s behaviour will most likely change dynamically over time, and therefore, to prevent us getting in a position, in which Threads can actually perform EEE on us, we need to adapt a dynamic strategy as well.

  • Ambuj YadavEnglish
    21·
    11 months ago

    Cant activitypub make license such that one need to keep server open to be able to use protocol

    • Adanisi@lemmy.zipEnglish
      2·
      11 months ago

      Like a GPL for a protocol? You can’t really license a protocol. I think that would be patents.

      And software patents are a bad idea.

      So, in my opinion, no.

      • jeremyparkerEnglish
        2·
        11 months ago

        This is digging into pretty legal territory and copyright law is (arguably unnecessarily) complex – but licenses are things that you use to let people use your patents. I think that’s what they were initially and mainly; but then software and the copyleft movements kind of detached the concepts of licenses and patents.

        The fediverse protocols could definitely be patented and licensed, but, like you said (or implied, really), that’s… sketchy af. Like, anyone we could trust to patent it would probably refuse to do it – Linux Torvalds would probably curse me out for even suggesting it, and the lecture rms gave me would probably never end.

      • Ambuj YadavEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        Ohh so developer cant control who can use protocol?