On 2 January 2013 18:48, hellekin (GNU Consensus)
<address@hidden> wrote:
On 01/02/2013 01:24 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
> activity streams projects seem to be dying. Case in point
status.net
>
*** Melvin, the successor of StatusNet, pump.io, is defined as a "Social
server with an ActivityStreams API".
>
> APIs and similar specs are AFAIK not subject to copyrights or
> patents, following the result of lawsuits like Oracle vs. Google on
> the Dalvik engine.
>
> I would like to understand this more. Do you have a pointer.
>
*** This might help:
There are legal precedents when the reverse-engineering is aimed at
interoperability of protocols. In the United States, the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act grants a safe harbor to reverse engineer
software for the purposes of interoperability with other software.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_protocol#Reverse_engineering
Thanks!
> Do you think you could persuade activity streams to come under a non
> proprietary license?
>
*** That would be an interesting move.
A step forward perhaps.
> If so, how far into the future is that? And would it be easier to
> migrate from GNU Social's current homebrew structure - or something
> properly specified like ActivityStreams?
>
> Its happening already. Just join the fun!
>
*** It is one of the purposes of the GNU/consensus project to specify an
implementation-agnostic social object layer for free software projects
to interoperate. This is a public debate, and you're invited to chime in.
+1
I have know of about 6-10 projects ready to work together. It would be nice if GNU Social was one. Maybe in January we can start with some meaningful tests.
As I suggested, a good starting point is, "Person on system A, wants to friend person on system B.". For which projects is it feasible? Let's work with those.
==
hk