Welcome Guest
Login
Magic Sign-On
Remote Authentication
Home
Magic Sign On
Apps
System Apps
Directory
Help
Language
Random Channel
Report Bug
Search
Tue, 19 Mar 2024 18:40:17 -0500
last edited: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:40:28 -0500
View Profile
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
Link to Source
show all
15 comments
Tue, 19 Mar 2024 18:44:15 -0500
View Profile
Gabriel Pettier
tshirtman@mas.to
@evan
we don't have to federated with them, but yes, strong agree.
Link to Source
Tue, 19 Mar 2024 18:44:55 -0500
View Profile
Evan B🥥ehs
eb@social.coop
@evan
it’s funny everybody is answering yes while simultaneously hating threads with all their guts
Link to Source
Tue, 19 Mar 2024 19:21:48 -0500
View Profile
Nathan A. Stine
stinerman@mastodon.social
@evan
this is literally true. Anyone can implement it if they have the technical knowledge.
Link to Source
Tue, 19 Mar 2024 20:01:10 -0500
View Profile
John Maxwell
jmax@mastodon.social
@evan
That is a simple fact. I am under no obligation to like everyone who implements it, though.
Link to Source
Tue, 19 Mar 2024 20:25:03 -0500
View Profile
Ian McKellar
ian@mckellar.social
@evan
only under an AGPL3+ license :)
Link to Source
Tue, 19 Mar 2024 20:44:14 -0500
last edited: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 20:46:16 -0500
View Profile
Scott M. Stolz
scott@loves.tech
@
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.
Link to Source
Tue, 19 Mar 2024 21:06:10 -0500
View Profile
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.
1
Scott M. Stolz
Link to Source
Tue, 19 Mar 2024 21:49:40 -0500
View Profile
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.
1
Scott M. Stolz
Link to Source
Tue, 19 Mar 2024 21:52:57 -0500
View Profile
Scott M. Stolz
scott@loves.tech
@
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.
Link to Source
Wed, 20 Mar 2024 02:14:41 -0500
View Profile
Paul Fuxjaeger
cypherhippie@chaos.social
@evan
want to share the motivation to run this
#EvanPoll
?
Link to Source
Wed, 20 Mar 2024 05:41:46 -0500
View Profile
Evan Prodromou
evan@cosocial.ca
@cypherhippie
I usually do that after the end of the poll.
Link to Source
Wed, 20 Mar 2024 05:56:42 -0500
View Profile
Simon Lucy
simon_lucy@mastodon.social
@ian
@scott
What hostility?
Link to Source
Wed, 20 Mar 2024 05:58:53 -0500
View Profile
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.
Link to Source
Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:27:35 -0500
View Profile
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.
Link to Source
Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:30:37 -0500
last edited: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:32:14 -0500
View Profile
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...?
Link to Source
Conversation Features
Loading...
Conversation Features
Loading...
Login
Magic Sign On
Local Login
Register
Login
Email or nickname
Password
Remember me
Login
Register
Password Reset
Sign On with Magic Sign On
Sign On with Hubzilla
Remote Authentication
Sorry, you have got no notifications at the moment
.
.
.
{2}
{4}
{2}
{10}