# I am the Watcher. I am your guide through this vast new twtiverse.
#
# Usage:
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/users View list of users and latest twt date.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/twt View all twts.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/mentions?uri=:uri View all mentions for uri.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/conv/:hash View all twts for a conversation subject.
#
# Options:
# uri Filter to show a specific users twts.
# offset Start index for quey.
# limit Count of items to return (going back in time).
#
# twt range = 1 69
# self = https://watcher.sour.is/conv/o4jmb5q
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... 🤔
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... 🤔
@adi what do you mean by what do I mean? 🤔 I’m asking for open honest opinions 😂
@adi what do you mean by what do I mean? 🤔 I’m asking for open honest opinions 😂
@prologic What stories in the news, what's wrong with MIT?
@adi I don't think I'm making my point very clear.
The think is I may want the "Disclose source" and "State changes" and "Network use is distribution" conditions of the AGPLv3.
Unlike the MIT which has far fewer conditions (_which I've been fine with up until now_):
With the addition of custom themes, and up and coming language packs and pages, this _might_ make sense....
@adi I don't think I'm making my point very clear.
The think is I may want the "Disclose source" and "State changes" and "Network use is distribution" conditions of the AGPLv3.
Unlike the MIT which has far fewer conditions (_which I've been fine with up until now_):
With the addition of custom themes, and up and coming language packs and pages, this _might_ make sense....
@adi I don't think I'm making my point very clear.\n\nThe think is I may want the "Disclose source" and "State changes" and "Network use is distribution" conditions of the AGPLv3.\n\n \n\nUnlike the MIT which has far fewer conditions (_which I've been fine with up until now_):\n\n \n\nWith the addition of custom themes, and up and coming language packs and pages, this _might_ make sense....
In my **very** humble opinion, I _think_ we've built what is a pretty decent social media platform here (_arguably better than the others_) and it would be a shame if some corporate rich asshole just stole all our hard work and ran with it. *cough* Mr. f'n Trump *cough* (_the law will find you!_)
In my **very** humble opinion, I _think_ we've built what is a pretty decent social media platform here (_arguably better than the others_) and it would be a shame if some corporate rich asshole just stole all our hard work and ran with it. *cough* Mr. f'n Trump *cough* (_the law will find you!_)
@prologic I think AGPLv3 is more than fair enough. I too like MIT, but in the context of an online platform like this that could be open to abuse by certain types, ala the Truth.social/Mastodon example, AGPL at least makes sure the code can be kept open and gives you legal recourse for those abusers.
@prologic I'm aware about differences between BSD and GPL, I'm still fine with BSD.
@adi Are you opposed to a license change to AGPL then? 🤔
@adi Are you opposed to a license change to AGPL then? 🤔
@prologic I'm not opposing nor in favor, I prefer MIT. Wouldn't mind if you switch to AGPL.
How's the protocol licensed? MIT right?
@adi It was literally linked earlier in the root conversation, the whole Mastodon/Truth.social drama, you must be aware of it 😅
Okay that was weird, I thought I replied to the forked convo...
@eldersnake I understand not releasing the source is a breach of the AGPL license, wouldn't be it were BSD. Other abuse? Did I misunderstand?
_Personally_, _I_ wouldn't mind if TRUTH took my code and didn't release source code.
@adi \n> Personally, I wouldn’t mind if TRUTH took my code and didn’t release source code.\n\nYeah, and I imagine most people releasing under a MIT license wouldn't care, that's an expected part of that very permissive license. But that is I guess why we're having this discussion, as @prologic isn't so comfortable with it, and I can understand why. If Trump and co (and their ilk) want to develop a proprietary system they have more than enough money to do so and don't need to leech off others work and call it their own.
@eldersnake Precisely 👌 And ad I want to setup a not for profit org behind Yarn.social; I’d hate for the work and effort we’ve all put in (so far and in the future) to be ruined like this (as an example) 😥
@eldersnake Precisely 👌 And ad I want to setup a not for profit org behind Yarn.social; I’d hate for the work and effort we’ve all put in (so far and in the future) to be ruined like this (as an example) 😥
What do you mean by ruined?
@prologic I think this decision is for you and those putting in the work.\n\nso if Trump revealed the changes made to Mastodon, he would be in the clear?
@laz Yes as far as I understand the GPL license! You're not required to do that under a BSD license (MIT as yarn is, ISC).
@laz What are you getting at there? 🤔
@laz What are you getting at there? 🤔
I _personally_ don't believe modifying my software and not releasing the source code counts as ruined.
Tbh @prologic I believe it's a good idea to keep the MIT license in the spirit of simplicity.
@adi What do you mean by simplicity?
@prologic 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 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.
@laz \n> 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.\n\nThat is the argument, exactly.
@laz
> Mastodon is open source
... licensed as AGPL which requires to release any modifications, yarn is also open source, but MIT, which don't require to release changes. Just to make things clear.
@adi 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 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”
I can understand preferring changes to be released, especially when in our example, the modifiers are funded by a rich backer. Think about it, @prologic is one man who has mostly created all this from the ground up. Then a sizable development team gets the code, who knows what features/improvements they implement, if the code is AGPL they will be "contributed" (unless they be nefarious and try hide it ala Mastodon incident 😅)
hope that makes sense, typed it out quickly, phone on 1% battery 🤣
@eldersnake Would be nice if. Makes sense. That's the usual argument for GPL/AGPL. I could argue that a BSD license however favors adoption because it's less restrictive.
@adi That's fair. I guess ultimately it depends how much you want to be sure you'll see code changes come back or not.
@adi 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? 🤔
@adi 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? 🤔
Interesting video I watched/listened to today that kind of coincides with the topic of this conversation: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=vrDDHNZmsnQ (Invidious link, so no YouTube don't worry)
Kinda click baitey title and really he was paying out on Chromium, but a big part of his spiel was why he doesn't think projects like Chromium should be MIT licensed.
Note that I am neither for or against MIT, my personal opinion is it's always a case-by-case basis and context matters. But some interesting points he makes, especially about the freedoms of the user as much as the developer.
@eldersnake I'll definitely look into that. But just as a sidenote Invidous often doesn't load for me correctly, so I usually recommend people switching to HookTube.com instead, for an ad-free viewing that (at least for me) works every time. 🤔
License wise I also hold that same opinion, that I'm not against any one of these licenses and would rather his she then on case by case basis.
But the video is right that in this case the MIT license currently puts most browser developers at the mercy of Google, which is not good, but considering how many of them are just Chrome but slightly different + additional garbage, I wouldn't be too mad if the people who make the browsers like Brave, Opera or Edge and make money doing so actually had to work for that money themselves and maintain their own browser core.
It'd also be a great way to finally break Googles monopolization of the Internet and thus benefit us in the long run. 🤔
@eldersnake
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.
@eldersnake
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.
@thecanine Well said!
And yeah @prologic, I couldn't help but think of this conversation when I heard his take on it.
@eldersnake Classical GPL vs BSD arguments. I usually agree with this statement:
> Allowing someone to make a proprietary product is objectively giving someone more freedom with what they can do with it, no matter how many ways said derivative disrespects freedom
@prologic
> There is no way to protect the Pod Owner/Operators and end users if the software behind Yarn.social is MIT licensed IHMO
Protect them from what, I don't understand.
@adi
> Allowing someone to make a proprietary product is objectively giving someone more freedom with what they can do with it, no matter how many ways said derivative disrespects freedom
Don't think anyone would dispute that on face value, but again that seems more to do with the freedom of the developer(s).
Kind of getting tired of this yarn. I mean, come on, are we beating a dead horse? Where is the mute/unsubscribe/block button? 😅
@fastidious These are the usual discussions when it comes to BSD vs GPL. What license do you agree with?