@empiricism@tfardet@louis I thin Meta is more intelligent... if they do something like that no one would accept and that would be contraproductive for their goals, whateber they are.
I was joking (Apologise if 😬 didn't come across as sarcasm).
l would have licenced ActivityPub, Mastodon, etc, with a "for non-commercial purposes only".
If the corporate sector become more interested in Mastodon (due to the population numbers on the network), l would expect they'd be a "business as usual" Fediverse (e.g., corporate greed being the primary motive. E.g., advertising & more implicit forms of information control) & the Fediverse that blocked Corporate
"I would of" implied a past tense (if it was up to me).
"Who can license it and with which rights?"
In the past tense, Mastodon software developers could have licensed their work so that it would have legally only been developed and used for non-commercial purposes.
"It is an open protocol"
Do you mean open source? That means people can read the code and develop it. A license regulates what it can be developed & used for.
And the software of Mastodon is just a sofware which supports ActivityPub, like Lemmy, Calkey, Kbin and a lot others. Eben I don't think that Meta will open Mastodon instances, they will use their own software for it.
Add comment