this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2023
227 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37551 readers
338 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] scott@lem.free.as 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.org 6 points 1 year ago

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

[–] ondoyant@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago

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

[–] lloram239@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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".