Speaking of licensing… I feel that perhaps we should considered relicensing Yarn.social and all of it’s software. See Choosing a license… Does anyone have any opinions on this? I have personally always historically licensed my own work under the terms of the MIT License; but given recent stories in the news, I’m not so sure this is the best idea anymore… 🤔
@prologic@twtxt.net I think this decision is for you and those putting in the work.
so if Trump revealed the changes made to Mastodon, he would be in the clear?
@laz@tt.vltra.plus What are you getting at there? 🤔
@prologic@twtxt.net not sure which part you are responding to, so will answer both parts. Ultimately, it’s your project, and after putting in so much time, it’s justified that you make this decision based on what you are happy with…
@prologic@twtxt.net Mastodon is open source. So, I thought the argument against Trump was not that he is who he is but that his social media took the free work, made changes and didn’t share those changes.
@adi@f.adi.onl What is your issue with contributing back to a project which licenses like AGPL require? 🤔 AGPL exam go so far as to recognize “cloud services” as “distribution”
@adi@f.adi.onl Restrictive in what sense? 🤔 as a pod owner/operator if the software is licensed under the terms of the AGPL; and if you make no changes how is that at all restrictive to you? if you do make any changes to the code what is so bad about contributing them back so that other pod owner/operator can benefit from the improvements? 🤔
@eldersnake@yarn.andrewjvpowell.com
Yeah what this guy is saying resonates with me.
MIT is permissive but that’s about it.
And
It respects the developer, but does not respect the end user.
The examples cited as well with the potential for a big company to just take the MIT licensed code and do whatever the hell they want with it is really the main issue here. There is no way to protect the Pod Owner/Operators and end users if the software behind Yarn.social is MIT licensed IHMO.