• Scott@lem.free.as
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Helix@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Facebook can easily circumvent most requirements like that if the license isn’t invasivively copyleft. Usually web standards have permissive licenses.

    • adderaline@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • jabjoe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If it is copyleft, they will probably try to reimplement it permissively.

      • lloram239@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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”.

        Though if Meta does anything, I’d expect it to be written from scratch and MIT licensed. Companies don’t like to get near anything GPL as long as they can avoid it.