-

Scott M. Stolz

Entrepreneur & Author

Authorship Studio is part of a decentralized social media network powered by Hubzilla.

Tue, 19 Mar 2024 18:40:17 -0500 last edited: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:40:28 -0500

Evan Prodromou

evan@cosocial.ca

"Everyone is allowed to implement ActivityPub."

#EvanPoll #poll

Strongly agree

461 Votes | 87%

Somewhat agree

57 Votes | 11%

Somewhat disagree

9 Votes | 2%

Strongly disagree

3 Votes | 1%

530 Votes in total
Poll has ended

show all 15 comments

Tue, 19 Mar 2024 18:44:15 -0500

Gabriel Pettier

tshirtman@mas.to

@evan we don't have to federated with them, but yes, strong agree.

Tue, 19 Mar 2024 18:44:55 -0500

Evan Boehs

eb@social.coop

@evan it’s funny everybody is answering yes while simultaneously hating threads with all their guts

Tue, 19 Mar 2024 19:21:48 -0500

Nathan A. Stine

stinerman@mastodon.social

@evan this is literally true. Anyone can implement it if they have the technical knowledge.

Tue, 19 Mar 2024 20:01:10 -0500

John Maxwell

jmax@mastodon.social

@evan That is a simple fact. I am under no obligation to like everyone who implements it, though.

Tue, 19 Mar 2024 20:25:03 -0500

Ian McKellar

ian@mckellar.social

@evan only under an AGPL3+ license :)

Tue, 19 Mar 2024 20:44:14 -0500 last edited: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 20:46:16 -0500

Scott M. Stolz

scott@authorship.studio

@Ian McKellar Definitely not under AGPL3+. You'd have a fork called FreeActivityPub so fast, your head would spin.

We already had this happen at least once in the fediverse. A fediverse project started off as MIT license, and years later the new maintainers decided to change the project to AGPL. But, legally, the AGPL only applies to new code on the project, and cannot and does not change the license of the earlier code. It was quickly forked. Now there are several MIT licensed forks based on the same code base that compete with them.

(What's even funnier is that the original developer of the project forked the project and currently maintains an MIT licensed fork himself and is no longer involved in the AGPL version.)

It is okay if platforms and software are AGPL, but the underlying protocol needs to be free for anyone to use without AGPL restrictions added onto it, because it would limit who can connect to the fediverse. Maybe that is some people's goal, but if it were tried, we would just fork it and create a free version that anyone can use.

Tue, 19 Mar 2024 21:06:10 -0500

Ian McKellar

ian@mckellar.social

@scott
I was joking, hence the emoticon, but I find this hostility to the rights of end users disappointing. I'm personally quite attached to the culture that emphasizes community and creators over server operators, but I guess we have a broad tent.

Tue, 19 Mar 2024 21:49:40 -0500

Andrew Eisenberg❗️

aeisenberg@cosocial.ca

@evan It’s an open standard. If someone isn’t allowed to implement it, then it’s not open.

It’s equivalent to putting up a billboard in a public place and questioning if everyone is allowed to read it.

Tue, 19 Mar 2024 21:52:57 -0500

Scott M. Stolz

scott@authorship.studio

@Ian McKellar Sorry, I was expecting a ;) for a joke instead of a :). LOL. My bad.

The nice thing with the fediverse is that a community can adopt a variety of governance styles. For example, a server operator can be an unincorporated nonprofit association (which is a specific type of legal entity in some states and countries), where the members of the server govern the server and elect its leaders. So the server operator can be the community itself if organized as an association.

Personally, I think that over time, smaller players that treat their users and creators better will win over platforms that exploit their users. At the very least, they will influence how the bigger platforms behave because they are direct competitors. Protocols like ActivityPub and OpenWebAuth (Magic Sign On) level the playing field somewhat. Anyone can spin up a fediverse server and have access to the 7 million accounts/channels on the fediverse. If they misbehave, they may get blocked, but if they behave, they have same access as everyone else.

Wed, 20 Mar 2024 02:14:41 -0500

Paul Fuxjaeger

cypherhippie@chaos.social

@evan want to share the motivation to run this #EvanPoll?

Wed, 20 Mar 2024 05:41:46 -0500

Evan Prodromou

evan@cosocial.ca

@cypherhippie I usually do that after the end of the poll.

Wed, 20 Mar 2024 05:56:42 -0500

Simon Lucy

simon_lucy@mastodon.social

@ian @scott

What hostility?

Wed, 20 Mar 2024 05:58:53 -0500

The Gym Nerd

TheGymNerd@mastodon.social

@evan how can someone not agree to this? Everyone is allowed to implement AP protocol... That's not an option.

And AP (federated structure) is allowing everyone to decide with whom they want to interact with.

Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:27:35 -0500

Steven D. Brewer 🏳️‍⚧️

stevendbrewer@wandering.shop

@evan IANAL, but anyone can as long as they comply with the terms of the W3C Community Final Specification Agreement (FSA). https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/fsa-deed/

If they want to run a particular implementation, they might have to conform with other license terms as well. But they could always write their own implementation.

Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:30:37 -0500 last edited: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:32:14 -0500

Sarven Capadisli

csarven@w3c.social

@evan I think I like this poll. So, I think there is the "obvious" option but then there is the longer deliberation that's quite important/complicated, and not particularly unique to AP (or any other specification) re "allowed to". I'm thinking along the lines of serious security and privacy matters; misuse without oversight or regulations... not sure where/what the exact lines are or ought to be.

I mean.. should the military or terrorists be allowed to implement/use HTTP...?

Sorry, you have got no notifications at the moment...