Helix ( Helix@beehaw.org ) to TechnologyEnglish · 3 years agoMeta's decentralized social plans confirmed. Is Embrace-Extend-Extinguish of the Fediverse next?reb00ted.orgexternal-linkmessage-square329linkfedilinkarrow-up1336cross-posted to: meta@lemm.ee
arrow-up1336external-linkMeta's decentralized social plans confirmed. Is Embrace-Extend-Extinguish of the Fediverse next?reb00ted.orgHelix ( Helix@beehaw.org ) to TechnologyEnglish · 3 years agomessage-square329linkfedilinkcross-posted to: meta@lemm.ee
minus-squareHelix ( Helix@beehaw.org ) OPlinkfedilinkarrow-up23·3 years ago We have the power over ActivityPub Who is ‘we’? And who doesn’t say that there’s something on top of activitypub? Plus, if they do create cool features, why would we not also add them? Because we don’t have multiple thousands of paid developers.
minus-squareSojourn :coffefiedyellow: ( shipp@mastodon.coffee ) linkfedilinkarrow-up23·3 years agodeleted by creator
minus-squareScott ( scott@lem.free.as ) linkfedilinkarrow-up9·3 years agoOne 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.
minus-squareHelix ( Helix@beehaw.org ) OPlinkfedilinkarrow-up7·3 years agoFacebook can easily circumvent most requirements like that if the license isn’t invasivively copyleft. Usually web standards have permissive licenses.
minus-squareadderaline ( ondoyant@beehaw.org ) linkfedilinkarrow-up3·3 years agoi’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.
minus-squarejabjoe ( jabjoe@feddit.uk ) linkfedilinkarrow-up3·3 years agoIf it is copyleft, they will probably try to reimplement it permissively.
minus-squarelloram239 ( lloram239@feddit.de ) linkfedilinkarrow-up1·edit-23 years agodeleted by creator
minus-squaresznio ( sznio@beehaw.org ) linkfedilinkarrow-up7·3 years ago Because we don’t have multiple thousands of paid developers. Having worked at a company with thousands of developers, that’s a significant advantage for us.
Who is ‘we’? And who doesn’t say that there’s something on top of activitypub?
Because we don’t have multiple thousands of paid developers.
deleted by creator
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.
Facebook can easily circumvent most requirements like that if the license isn’t invasivively copyleft. Usually web standards have permissive licenses.
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.
If it is copyleft, they will probably try to reimplement it permissively.
deleted by creator
Having worked at a company with thousands of developers, that’s a significant advantage for us.