Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

blog.joinmastodon.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 551 posts

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#411

Post by fvdessen »

Robin_Message wrote: post #302
fvdessen wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone is free to use the software. [...] The rest of your reply disagrees with your first sentence. It seems that only the people who share ml5.js values are allowed to use the software. There's no problem with that, but they should be clear about it. They should also state clearly that ml5.js is not free or open source software, as its license violates the first principle of Free Software: > The freedom to run…

> The rest of your reply disagrees with your first sentence. It seems that only the people who share ml5.js values are allowed to use the software. Any can use the software only for purposes in line with ml5.js values . So everyone is free to use the software, just not for all the purposes that any particular person might choose. It's something like a bar with a "no racist language" sign: anyone can use the bar, they…

> So everyone is free to use the software, just not for all the purposes that any particular person might choose.

Can a weapon manufacturing company use ml5.js ?

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#412

Post by wizzwizz4 »

rsynnott wrote: post #357
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt there'll be much boycotting; the people who might boycott won't want to use it in the first place. Certainly no regulation will be enacted. I doubt a smear campaign, either; if it's anything like Twitter, a simple screenshot of the homepage will be enough. So the only things are: • licenses revoked – except with free software, this can only happen if you violate the license • deplatformed by infrastructure pr…

> licenses revoked – except with free software, this can only happen if you violate the license Eh, there _are_ commercial licenses which would have a "don't bring us into disrepute" clause, but you'd imagine they'll probably avoid those. Mind you you'd also imagine they'd avoid violating the AGPL, and yet here we are.

Sorry, I was grammatically ambiguous. Free software is the one where this can only happen if you violate the license, and it's an exception to “traditional” (proprietary) software licensing. Please read the “except” as a fancy “but”. (How dare you not pick up on my intonation‽ It was obvious in the timing of my keypresses!)

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#413

Post by Kye »

gs17 wrote: post #400
lettergram wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> discriminating against marginalized communities If mastodon had this in the code of conduct they’d not be able to use their own software haha. They banned Gab and arguably Trump has a marginalized base and as far as I’m aware never advocated for violence (if you believe the contrary, note that trump could have been arrested but hasn’t)

In that case, Mastodon would be deciding who counts as "marginalized", and I really doubt they would see it that way.

You don't even have to guess. The default terms and code of conduct reflect my understanding of the project's positions.

https://mastodon.social/about/more

Some of Trump's base is marginalized on one intersection or another, but they support ideologies and an ideologue that are not marginalized by any defensible definition.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#414

Post by coldtea »

jlangenauer wrote: post #152
roenxi wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all software was licensed that way, 5-15 years would pass then suddenly there'd be a whole bunch of "Wow, Stallman was right again! We should have been using free software licenses!" style articles. Restricting software use to only people approved by the creators is a terrible idea. Society has to operate with some level of trust that even people we disagree with, using methods we don't approve of, have the potent…

Why? The creators created the software, they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it. They're under no moral or legal obligation to allow people to use the fruits of their labors, except as they permit.

>They're under no moral or legal obligation to allow people to use the fruits of their labors, except as they permit.

Whether they're under a moral or legal obligation depends on the moral code (not the same across people in the same country, much less in different countries) and the legal code.

For example, if they had a condition that Women, Gays, Jews or Blacks should not use it? Can they "put any conditions they please" including the above? What would you say about this "morally"? I know what most would say: that they have a moral obligation to not put such a condition.

And it would not be legal either, in many jurisdictions at least.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#415

Post by mdp2021 »

Y_Y wrote: post #287
jlangenauer wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? The creators created the software, they can put any conditions they please on how others might use it. They're under no moral or legal obligation to allow people to use the fruits of their labors, except as they permit.

What about a bakery forbidding sale of cakes to people whose marriage violates their "code of conduct"?

Literally: a server should be free to decline services to specific clients - service is conditional. It should be easy for anyone in general to think of a list of clients one would not work for.

Contextually: the point is more like "we do not accept that these springs we build can be used in landmines". It ecompasses the literal point, yet it is different - at least, it refuses the purpose, not the person.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#416

Post by [deleted] »

gs17 wrote: post #400
lettergram wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> discriminating against marginalized communities If mastodon had this in the code of conduct they’d not be able to use their own software haha. They banned Gab and arguably Trump has a marginalized base and as far as I’m aware never advocated for violence (if you believe the contrary, note that trump could have been arrested but hasn’t)

In that case, Mastodon would be deciding who counts as "marginalized", and I really doubt they would see it that way.

[deleted]

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#417

Post by jrootabega »

bettysdiagnose wrote: post #345
jrootabega wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could understand that interpretation. I just don't believe it's true. I think the best thing to say, if anything was necessary to say, would have been "This action is meant to defend the license, and does not constitute a judgment of the user that is violating the license."

OK but why not give them the benefit of the doubt? You've given no reason why you don't believe them, you just say you don't. OK, so what?

I understand why someone would interpret Mastodon's statement that way, but I believe it is a misinterpretation and not what Mastodon meant. I don't have a doubt about Mastodon's meaning.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#418

Post by margalabargala »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #90
havkd wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand. But can this be fought in court as long as the website doesn’t even exist? There is no indication that the website will infringe on this licence yet… it hasn’t launched yet!

> can this be fought in court as long as the website doesn’t even exist? The website did exist. Users created accounts and demanded a copy of the source. They were refused, and so the license was infringed. Mastodon isn't threatening legal action. They're asking for that refusal to be reversed, thereby curing the infringement.

I had the same question- "Does taking down the website cure the violation?"

Here's the relevant clause in GPLv3:

> You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

> However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.

> Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.

Basically- the website WAS in violation, and Mastodon is within their rights to permanently withdraw the license following their 30-day notice. I think the key here is the difference between "cease violation", with truth.social has done by taking down the site, and "cure the violation", which refers to correcting the earlier violation by distributing the source as it existed at that time. Without "curing" the previous violation, then truth.social cannot launch again with any modified version of Mastodon, as their license will be permanently revoked.

That said, there's leeway involved due to truth.social not being intentionally public. On one hand, "people were able to access it and make accounts", on the other hand, gaining access to some company's internal GPL tool because they misconfigured a VPN does not entitle you to source for that tool (and you violated the CFAA). It's a question for the courts, but it probably doesn't really matter because one of three things will happen:

1) truth.social will re-launch with no Mastodon code, and doesn't care if their Mastodon license is revoked.

2) truth.social will re-launch with Mastodon code, will provide their sources, and the whole thing goes away.

3) truth.social will re-launch with Mastodon code, will NOT provide the sources, and Mastodon has a much stronger legal leg to stand on.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#419

Post by margalabargala »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #281
andrew_ wrote: post #172

What's the over/under on how many times this will be pushed to the front page? Was going to post some prior discussion links, but there are over two pages of Google results for unique HN links on the topic: https://www.google.com/search?q=news.ycombinator.com+trump+m...

Until "Truth Social" has been stopped, presumably...

Or just their license violations.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#420

Post by cblconfederate »

roenxi wrote: post #134
s7r wrote: post #121

In terms of "antithetical values", the machine learning project ml5js.org actually did something about this. They bound their open-source license to a Code of Conduct¹, which forbids the use of their ML software for (1) discriminating against marginalized communities, (2) building tools that disingenuously manipulate public opinion, (3) building tools of mass surveillance and prediction to repress the rights of peopl…

If all software was licensed that way, 5-15 years would pass then suddenly there'd be a whole bunch of "Wow, Stallman was right again! We should have been using free software licenses!" style articles. Restricting software use to only people approved by the creators is a terrible idea. Society has to operate with some level of trust that even people we disagree with, using methods we don't approve of, have the potent…

Stallman was always right
Post reply on HN