devnull, 4 months ago

Which is his right as the #BDFL of the Mastodon project. How he decides to steer the ship is what happens at the end of the day.

However, niche communities have been around for ages before the advent of microblogging and blasting your every throught into the ether/#fediverse. Forums (like @nodebb!) have been doing this since the internet was invented, and in many ways, a hierarchical listing of topics makes a lot more sense than a firehose of individual thoughts.

2/4

chpietsch, 6 months ago

@Christiansurrey Im Unterschied zu der ZEIT-Journalistin habe ich Eugen nie persönlich getroffen.

Ich denke jetzt schon eine Weile über den im Artikel verwendeten Ausdruck „benevolent dictator for life“ (#BDFL) nach. Der ist mir aus der Free-Software-Szene schon lange geläufig. Tatsächlich gibt es Beispiele, wo dieses Modell zu funktionieren scheint, z.B. Python.

Bei Perl bin ich mir nicht so sicher, weil Perl 6 ein Fiasko war, das zum Niedergang dieser Programmiersprache sicherlich beigetragen hat.

Der Linux-Kernel ist ein weiteres Beispiel für ein Projekt, das von einem BDFL geführt wird. Unterm Strich ist es eine riesige Erfolgsgeschichte, aber Linus trat nicht selten wie ein Tyrann auf.

Aber lässt sich das auf Mastodon übertragen? Es nutzt ein Netzwerk (das Fediverse), das ursprünglich als Zufluchtsort gedacht war. Eugen scheint eher auf Expansion zu setzen (wenn auch bisher ohne Risikokapital). Das beschert uns einen Zielkonflikt. Und dass Eugen auch die größten Instanzen betreibt, muss sich ändern.

tallship, 10 months ago

Here we go folks!

How Minix got to be the most prolific desktop operating system in the world...

lukesmith.xyz/articles/why-i-u…

Now, there's another point to be made here, without specifically naming any projects currently abusing user contributions. Let's call this hypothetical project "hammer&anvil", itself a fork of a popular software project - but claims it's all about being free and transparent, wanting to distinguish itself from the project it's forked from by adopting GPL3 instead of a permissive license.

Sure, the project's BDFL (let's call her "Strawberry Daiquiri"), says one day, "were forming a fork of project X because they've formed a company and I'm afraid what they are going to do with X because it's under a permissive license. This girl will be brutally transparent and completely run by the community under the philosophy of anarchy, but we're going to call it a sociocracy so you don't know that it's really just me making a proprietary product for my own ambitions".

Well, Miss Daquiri decides to capture by capitalizing upon the sentiment that folks have for Copyleft - it's supposed to protect free software, right?

Well, this fork (hammer& anvil) is a hosted solution - meaning SaaS, meaning, it runs elsewhere (other than in your computer) in the cloud as a publicly accessible service. Hmmmm.

That means that the most appropriate Copyleft license is likely the AGPL, and not the GPL as one would expect fur a desktop or other local program that you actually download and install in your laptop or server.

The GPL requires that when you distribute (give away or sell) your program, either by letting someone download or handing it to them on a USB stick, Etc., You must also make available ALL of the source code, including any changes you've made to the program.

But if you run a modified GPL program as a service in the cloud you don't have to provide ANY off the changes you've made to the code.

Hmmm.

With AGPL you do have to supply your users with ANY code modifications you've made to the running service to which they have accounts...

So let's just say that you fork Mastodon, and call it Glitch-Soc, modify it, and run it in the cloud for people to create accounts on and use (for free or for monthly subscription fees - it doesn't matter). ANY and ALL changes to the code base that you make MUST be made available anytime a user asks for the source code, because it's an #AGPL licensed product.

And in reality, such is actually the case with this exceedingly popular and capable #fork. It's a fine product in it's own right.

But had you changed the license to all contributions moving forward to #GPL, you wouldn't have to provide any modifications you made (unless you give or sell the software product itself on say, a USB stick or via download).

Why? Because you're just allowing them to access and use your service, your not actually giving them the program to use for themselves elsewhere - so any modifications you made since forking under a different license (GPL instead of AGPL) isn't something you have to show them.

You've essentially created a #proprietary product (if you're so nefarious as to hide your code changes by butt disclosing them), the only code of which you must supply being that which existed under the AGPL before you forked it.

Both #Copyleft and permissive open source #licenses like #BSD and #MIT can be a good thing, or they can be abused beyond the intentions of the #FOSS inclined project contributors. Just make sure that you understand what can and cannot be changed where your intended purpose for the #distribution and #availability of source code is concerned....

There are BIG differences between the ramifications of each #license and how they can affect transparency and distribution of your free gifts to the world.

In our hypothetical scenario with hammer&anvil, the #BDFL, #Strawberry Daiquiri, has decided that she's going to launch a hosted service, and she's going to include things that you don't see and can't be aware of behind the scenes which, if disclosed, you would have nothing to do with - but you'll never know what kinds of scary things she's done with the product that only resembles the original on the surface, because Miss Daquiri will never have to show you the code she has added behind the scenes.

"Beautiful Victor, Beautiful."
-The Monster, speaking to his creator in the film, 'Frankenstein, The True Story'.

#tallship #licensing

⛵

.