If you are interested in sharing book recommendations with other, or just manage your books, then bookwyrm is great for that! The .world team also has a bookwyrm instance up and running at bookwyrm.world with a community here on lemmy as well at !bookwyrm@lemmy.world. Read Ruuds original post about it here: https://lemmy.world/post/5904792

If you want to join another bookwyrm instance, then head over to joinbookwyrm.com.

Anyway, it's a great place to find books, share books, and find people with similar interests in books! If there is anything that you feel needs to be improved or changed on the bookwyrm.world instance, then contact me!

EDIT - Mastodon account for the instance: @bookwyrmworld@mastodon.world

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] dan@sffa.community 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I really wish was a Free Software and not a proprietary one!

[–] perishthethought@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Hmmmm...?

https://github.com/bookwyrm-social/bookwyrm

[–] Emerald@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Just the fact that you can see the source code does NOT mean it is free software. This project is licensed under the anti-capitalist software license, which is not a free software license.

The Anti-Capitalist Software License is a nonfree license because it extends the four freedoms only to some kinds of organizations, not to all.

https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:ANTI-1.4

[–] perishthethought@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago

I see. Thanks for explaining, and for the FSF link.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

proprietary / (prəˈpraɪɪtərɪ, -trɪ) / adjective

of, relating to, or belonging to property or proprietors

privately owned and controlled

It's not proprietary. It's non-commercial and opensource.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] dan@sffa.community 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No. It's not Open source at all!

From Open source definition: "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."

Source: https://opensource.org/osd

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago

That's the opensource definition by one single entity. They don't own the word, nor does everybody need to take their word as gospel. The OSI are like the church and their priests. They preach a static, never-changing, world that they believe in that doesn't line up with the real world, where opensource is taken advantage of by multi-billion and trillion dollar companies who host competing services without or minimally contributing back.

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] matcha_addict@lemy.lol 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

By free software you mean the FSF or OSI definition. Many people won't care, and some of us actively are against corporate leech on free software, which this license helps with.

[–] Emerald@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Does it though? As far as I know, there hasn't been a legal dispute over this license before in a court. It probably wouldn't even hold up in court with its oddly specific cases and vague wording.