social
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Social] More internal use of ActivityStreams?


From: Rob Myers
Subject: Re: [Social] More internal use of ActivityStreams?
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:48:01 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.11) Gecko/20121122 Icedove/10.0.11

On 02/01/13 17:41, Melvin Carvalho wrote:

If you make efforts to interoperate, you will be less lonely.  It means
writing code, if you're ready, there's other people out there that are too.

Coding for N different protocols on N different servers is not a better use of time than just building support for the leading protocol.

Yeah this is a blip compared to linked data.

Social media being exposed as linked data on the web is a no brainer, but that is only equivalent to a part of OStatus.

It's a blip even compared to facebook, or open graph protocol.

It's more of a "blip" than any of the alternatives, however.

You've not explained why you
favour this.  Friendica is a project I like, but they left the
"federated social web", one of the reasons was ostatus evangelism.

OStatus is the leading free software implemented social protocol.

> [...]
>
Thanks, I will look into this.  Tho I really do prefer not to have to
worry about lawyers at all.  Why not use creative commons protocols, or
those under known standards bodies?  This was the advice given to GNU
Social when they met with timbl 1-2 years ago.  What's holding things back?

There's no such thing as a "Creative Commons Protocol".

OStatus has a w3c working group.

Nothing is holding anything back.

IANAL, why is there a problem putting this under creative commons,
please do tell me if you have evidence that I can use this proprietary
protocol, and am free to modify it.  If it were the case, why would the
spec need to be approved by lawyers before release?

Which "Creative Commons" license? There are a number of them, not all of which are Free, and none of which will affect the uncopyrightable details of the publicly documented protocol.

Slapping a CC license on the document wouldn't affect any patent claims, which I believe are the crux of the licensing issue but irrelevant for a GNU project.

OStatus is here, it's popular, and it works.

- Rob.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]