Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Evan's posts Post Back to profile
Evan Prodromou

"Everyone is allowed to implement ActivityPub."

#EvanPoll #poll

Anonymous poll

Poll

Strongly agree
291
85.8%
Somewhat agree
39
11.5%
Somewhat disagree
7
2.1%
Strongly disagree
2
0.6%
339 people voted.
Voting ended 20 March at 23:40.
19 March at 23:40 | Open on cosocial.ca
14 comments
Gabriel Pettier

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

19 March at 23:44 | Open on mas.to
Evan B🥥ehs

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

19 March at 23:44 | Open on social.coop
Evan B🥥ehs

@evan perhaps, the argument is “anybody can implement it but we don’t need to federate with you”

19 March at 23:46 | Open on social.coop
bignose

@eb
I don't want anyone to have the power to deny Meta (or anyone) the choice to implement ActivityPub.

I want Meta to be terminated and cease to exist. (This power exists, and I say we should use it.)

These are two entirely compatible positions.

@evan

20 March at 3:01 | Open on sw-development-is.social
Tassoman
Everyone is allowed to messup with AP 😆
19 March at 23:46 | Open on orwell.fun
Nathan A. Stine

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

20 March at 0:21 | Open on mastodon.social
John Maxwell

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

20 March at 1:01 | Open on mastodon.social
DELETED

@evan Could governments record posts/profiles by creating ActivityPub servers and keep records even if users try to delete posts/profiles?

20 March at 1:21 | Open on mastodon.social
Ian McKellar

@evan only under an AGPL3+ license :)

20 March at 1:25 | Open on mckellar.social
Scott M. Stolz
@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.
@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...
20 March at 1:44 | Open on authorship.studio
Andrew Eisenberg❗️

@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.

20 March at 2:49 | Open on cosocial.ca
Nemo_bis 🌈

@aeisenberg I agree in this case but it's not necessarily true in general. You can have an open standard for nuclear reactors and still prohibit to build one in your backyard without a permit.

20 March at 5:54 | Open on mamot.fr
Paul Fuxjaeger

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

20 March at 7:14 | Open on chaos.social
Evan Prodromou

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

20 March at 10:41 | Open on cosocial.ca
Go Up