Isn’t ActivityPub just an application protocol? To my knowledge there’s no ActivityPub inc. licensing the usage of the protocol or anything like that. A web protocol is just a series of guidelines everyone has agreed on following, you can’t attach terms and conditions to it.
Indeed.
Licensing usage of something is antithetical to free software culture anyway.
It would violate the Free Software Foundation’s Freedom Zero, that you should never have to accept a licence to use something.
(This is why free software cannot ever have a EULA, for instance)
TIL. Never really cared about the legal aspect of FOSS for anything other than slapping a GPL license next to anything I write but that is an interesting fact.
It’s come up in interesting cases.
I can’t remember which package it was, but there was one package that was distributed under the humourous “Don’t Be Evil License”, where you could “use this software for anything that’s not evil” or something like that.
This technically does not qualify as free software (freedom 0 must allow anyone to use it for evil), so Red Hat (I think it was?) had to get their lawyers to contact the developer and get him to give them an exemption to the licence, just in case one of their users used it for evil.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !privacyguides@lemmy.one
In the digital age, protecting your personal information might seem like an impossible task. We’re here to help.
This is a community for sharing news about privacy, posting information about cool privacy tools and services, and getting advice about your privacy journey.
You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:
Check out our website at privacyguides.org before asking your questions here. We’ve tried answering the common questions and recommendations there!
Want to get involved? The website is open-source on GitHub, and your help would be appreciated!
This community is the “official” Privacy Guides community on Lemmy, which can be verified here. Other “Privacy Guides” communities on other Lemmy servers are not moderated by this team or associated with the website.
Moderation Rules:
We prefer posting about open-source software whenever possible.
No soliciting engagement: Don’t ask for upvotes, follows, etc.
Surveys, Fundraising, and Petitions must be pre-approved by the mod team.
Be civil, no violence, hate speech. Assume people here are posting in good faith.
Don’t repost topics which have already been covered here.
News posts must be related to privacy and security, and your post title must match the article headline exactly. Do not editorialize titles, you can post your opinions in the post body or a comment.
Memes/images/video posts that could be summarized as text explanations should not be posted. Infographics and conference talks from reputable sources are acceptable.
No help vampires: This is not a tech support subreddit, don’t abuse our community’s willingness to help. Questions related to privacy, security or privacy/security related software and their configurations are acceptable.
No misinformation: Extraordinary claims must be matched with evidence.
Do not post about VPNs or cryptocurrencies which are not listed on privacyguides.org. See Rule 2 for info on adding new recommendations to the website.
General guides or software lists are not permitted. Original sources and research about specific topics are allowed as long as they are high quality and factual. We are not providing a platform for poorly-vetted, out-of-date or conflicting recommendations.
Isn’t ActivityPub just an application protocol? To my knowledge there’s no ActivityPub inc. licensing the usage of the protocol or anything like that. A web protocol is just a series of guidelines everyone has agreed on following, you can’t attach terms and conditions to it.
The thing they could do is block the servers of Meta or route to tor for anything sent to meta.
Eh, it still wouldn’t be “free software” at that point. “Free” also means freedom to send your data to Meta if you want to.
Indeed. Licensing usage of something is antithetical to free software culture anyway. It would violate the Free Software Foundation’s Freedom Zero, that you should never have to accept a licence to use something. (This is why free software cannot ever have a EULA, for instance)
TIL. Never really cared about the legal aspect of FOSS for anything other than slapping a GPL license next to anything I write but that is an interesting fact.
It’s come up in interesting cases. I can’t remember which package it was, but there was one package that was distributed under the humourous “Don’t Be Evil License”, where you could “use this software for anything that’s not evil” or something like that. This technically does not qualify as free software (freedom 0 must allow anyone to use it for evil), so Red Hat (I think it was?) had to get their lawyers to contact the developer and get him to give them an exemption to the licence, just in case one of their users used it for evil.
LMAO that’s hilarious. Love it.