[flagged]
Don't worry dude, you're still here.
[flagged]
Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL
91–99 of 99 posts
Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Masks don’t protect against viral licenses either. IP isn’t a valid claim to withhold the source. Security needs to be managed outside the code via vaults and other runtime secret stores. There’s no leg to stand on for not releasing the entire code consistently.
The other mastodon instances voluntarily chose to refuse to peer with Truth Social. Maybe they should show their face in court too.
I don’t understand what that has to do with source code level licensing. I’ve never seen anything in any open source license that requires forced interoperability at a service and business level. The fact they’re social pariahs doesn’t have a legal remedy, rather it just requires being not such asshats and hurtful to others.
Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the word is “frequently” which isn’t “exclusively” and the subject was “open source,” not code. I don’t think it’s controversial most free software / open source people fall into these categories much to the cryptofascist science denying qanon follower free software nerds dismay.
I'd even challenge "frequently" to the extent that it rises to an obvious point of "exploitation" when "their" code is used. It claims ownership and a position that is neither relevant the copyright issues presented nor, in my opinion, even true. It's probably not controversial here on Hacker News, but many people live inside this HN valley bubble that's pretty solidly disconnected from the rest of the country and ev…
Oh I agree the license of open source lets anyone use it. No debate at all.
But the demographics of the community are not particularly controversial and I’m frankly surprised people disagree at all no matter their social or political view point.
The HN valley bubble is absolutely disconnected from the rest of the world, but is absolutely representative of the open source developer community. Representative however does not mean exclusively so.
Your experience of presumption of political belief is specifically the “dismay” point I made. I absolutely agree there’s a huge presumption based on the overwhelming political alignment of the community and it absolutely makes science denying cryptofascists uncomfortable.
What I find unclear is why this makes me close minded. I’m a card carrying ACLU members and 1000% agree everyone is entitled to be as close minded and cruel as they want and am absolutely in favor of seeing Truth Social exist and watch it suck the money of its investors pockets since in fact their views -are- repugnant to most people. But they’re absolutely free to share them at their own expense.
Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Probably misidentified as spam; filtering isn't really based on content, but at various times we've used third party tools to deal with abuse and have been constantly improving and bringing those in-house. If you email support with the details they can address it. The biggest footgun I remember was some religious content (Christ on the cross, specifically) being identified as bad by some of these tools and filtered,…
Are your human moderators truth social employees or outsourced ?
Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Probably misidentified as spam; filtering isn't really based on content, but at various times we've used third party tools to deal with abuse and have been constantly improving and bringing those in-house. If you email support with the details they can address it. The biggest footgun I remember was some religious content (Christ on the cross, specifically) being identified as bad by some of these tools and filtered,…
Also what’s your stance on web crawling?
Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trade secrets are a type of IP.
They mean 'configuration secrets'. Those variables used for internal authorization and configuration that should never be leaked outside the organization. If source code of AGPL software is modified and used for an online service, it needs to be published in respecting the license, and best any 'trade secrets' are isolated. The only other alternatives are to use the code as-is or build a proprietary solution from scr…
I know what they meant.
My point is that the uses of the term at as disparate as they're making it. You would be sued under trade secret law if you intentionally leaked them.
Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
They mean 'configuration secrets'. Those variables used for internal authorization and configuration that should never be leaked outside the organization. If source code of AGPL software is modified and used for an online service, it needs to be published in respecting the license, and best any 'trade secrets' are isolated. The only other alternatives are to use the code as-is or build a proprietary solution from scr…
I know what they meant. My point is that the uses of the term at as disparate as they're making it. You would be sued under trade secret law if you intentionally leaked them.
> I know what they meant.
If you did, "Trade secrets are a type of IP." seems to be an unrelated assertion to the thread.
> You would be sued under trade secret law if you intentionally leaked them.
To embed trade secrets into an open source fork, would suggest either the intent to withhold the modified source, ignorance, or flat out incompetence. Anyone, be it a lone hacker or a large organization, can simply fork the source on the platform it's hosted on (e.g., GitHub, GitLab) at a click of a button.
It is a requirement of AGPL that all deployed updates to a product or online service need published source[0]. Once again, very simple to have this running off CI/CD. If there are trade secrets in that source... oh well, they have to be published too. So the simple solution is to not have them in there in the first place (i.e., abstract it away).
Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL
#98[dead]
Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strictly speaking, the source code needs to be made to users upon request. It doesn't need to be proactively published. That's just the easiest way to do it. So it would be within the license to update "quarterly, and whenever someone bothers to ask".
I don't believe that's true (as discussed with citation to the license in reply to a sibling comment to your one here).
I stand corrected. Thank you for linking the relevant paragraph in your sibling comment.