Helix@beehaw.org to Technology@beehaw.orgEnglish · 2 years agoMeta's decentralized social plans confirmed. Is Embrace-Extend-Extinguish of the Fediverse next?reb00ted.orgexternal-linkmessage-square239fedilinkarrow-up1221arrow-down10cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up1221arrow-down1external-linkMeta's decentralized social plans confirmed. Is Embrace-Extend-Extinguish of the Fediverse next?reb00ted.orgHelix@beehaw.org to Technology@beehaw.orgEnglish · 2 years agomessage-square239fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squareHelix@beehaw.orgOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up15·2 years ago We have the power over ActivityPub Who is ‘we’? And who doesn’t say that there’s something on top of activitypub? Plus, if they do create cool features, why would we not also add them? Because we don’t have multiple thousands of paid developers.
minus-squareSojourn :coffefiedyellow:@mastodon.coffeelinkfedilinkarrow-up16·2 years ago@Helix we have a legion of trans coders in pink striped programmer socks. They can do anything!
minus-squareScott@lem.free.aslinkfedilinkarrow-up7·2 years agoOne of the “powers” of OSS is that the license usually required changes to be fed back upstream. If Meta were not to do that the authors of Lemmy could ask someone like EFF to take legal proceeding against them.
minus-squareHelix@beehaw.orgOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·2 years agoFacebook can easily circumvent most requirements like that if the license isn’t invasivively copyleft. Usually web standards have permissive licenses.
minus-squareadderaline@beehaw.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up3·2 years agoi’m not sure if ActivityPub is copyleft or not. meta might be able to build proprietary features on top of it if the license isn’t viral.
minus-squarejabjoe@feddit.uklinkfedilinkarrow-up3·2 years agoIf it is copyleft, they will probably try to reimplement it permissively.
minus-squarelloram239@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2 years agoActivityPub itself is just a protocol, everybody can reimplement it. Lemmy and Mastodon are AGPL3 and thus copyleft along with “you must release source code for your server”.
minus-squaresznio@beehaw.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up4·2 years ago Because we don’t have multiple thousands of paid developers. Having worked at a company with thousands of developers, that’s a significant advantage for us.
Who is ‘we’? And who doesn’t say that there’s something on top of activitypub?
Because we don’t have multiple thousands of paid developers.
@Helix we have a legion of trans coders in pink striped programmer socks. They can do anything!
One of the “powers” of OSS is that the license usually required changes to be fed back upstream.
If Meta were not to do that the authors of Lemmy could ask someone like EFF to take legal proceeding against them.
Facebook can easily circumvent most requirements like that if the license isn’t invasivively copyleft. Usually web standards have permissive licenses.
i’m not sure if ActivityPub is copyleft or not. meta might be able to build proprietary features on top of it if the license isn’t viral.
If it is copyleft, they will probably try to reimplement it permissively.
ActivityPub itself is just a protocol, everybody can reimplement it. Lemmy and Mastodon are AGPL3 and thus copyleft along with “you must release source code for your server”.
Having worked at a company with thousands of developers, that’s a significant advantage for us.