So, basically all they need to do is say they have used some Mastodon code, link to the code/let them download it. Like, they forked version X. For example, look at your TV about menu, go to licenses, and you'll see something similar. The manufacturer website will have the downloads somewhere.
Basically something that can be done in a few minutes. Not a big deal, but something the media is using to make it look like a laughingstock.
I believe that this particular license requires you to release all of your source code if you choose to use any of Mastodon's source code. It's a fine license, and it should be respected.
What's retarded, though, is the seemingly unfounded claims that this has anything to do with the original product. All we have are screenshots from someone claiming they found the domain and this was on there unprotected, and it's since been taken down. Tbh, the entire thing could be a complete fabrication.
But, even if they actually did find it, that means nothing. This could be a literal placeholder, or a very early demo for early investors, totally unrelated to the final product.
The media is saying very matter-of-factly that Truth Social is based on Mastodon, when they have no evidence that proves this.
And the legal action being threatened is even more ridiculous. They gave them 30 days to either stop using Mastodon or release the source code of their modified version. They complied by taking it down... which they would have done regardless because it was never meant to be up.
Now there are vague threats of further legal action because it "technically" violated the license. But literally no judge in the land, not even the most pozz'd ones, are going to hear a case that says a website that was up accidentally and immediately taken down has to comply with a "user" request to the source code.
Upon further reading, this may not be the case in this instance, but I dunno.
Although, if there isn't a license that does this, I think there should be. I also swear there was. But I'm too lazy to look it up.
Ultimately, the idea would be that if you're putting in the effort to make software open source, it's because you typically believe in the concept of open source software and want to perpetuate it. Why would you want other companies using your software if they don't have the same values and belief in the concept of open source?
If Android were licensed like this the world would be a better place. While Android is open source, the version of Android that comes in your phone is not. This means that the manufacturer can sneak any shit in there that they want. If it were licensed like this, there would be transparency.
Not exactly how it works.
So, basically all they need to do is say they have used some Mastodon code, link to the code/let them download it. Like, they forked version X. For example, look at your TV about menu, go to licenses, and you'll see something similar. The manufacturer website will have the downloads somewhere.
Basically something that can be done in a few minutes. Not a big deal, but something the media is using to make it look like a laughingstock.
I believe that this particular license requires you to release all of your source code if you choose to use any of Mastodon's source code. It's a fine license, and it should be respected.
What's retarded, though, is the seemingly unfounded claims that this has anything to do with the original product. All we have are screenshots from someone claiming they found the domain and this was on there unprotected, and it's since been taken down. Tbh, the entire thing could be a complete fabrication.
But, even if they actually did find it, that means nothing. This could be a literal placeholder, or a very early demo for early investors, totally unrelated to the final product.
The media is saying very matter-of-factly that Truth Social is based on Mastodon, when they have no evidence that proves this.
And the legal action being threatened is even more ridiculous. They gave them 30 days to either stop using Mastodon or release the source code of their modified version. They complied by taking it down... which they would have done regardless because it was never meant to be up.
Now there are vague threats of further legal action because it "technically" violated the license. But literally no judge in the land, not even the most pozz'd ones, are going to hear a case that says a website that was up accidentally and immediately taken down has to comply with a "user" request to the source code.
I've done some oss, I didn't realize there was a license that did that. Crazy.
Upon further reading, this may not be the case in this instance, but I dunno.
Although, if there isn't a license that does this, I think there should be. I also swear there was. But I'm too lazy to look it up.
Ultimately, the idea would be that if you're putting in the effort to make software open source, it's because you typically believe in the concept of open source software and want to perpetuate it. Why would you want other companies using your software if they don't have the same values and belief in the concept of open source?
If Android were licensed like this the world would be a better place. While Android is open source, the version of Android that comes in your phone is not. This means that the manufacturer can sneak any shit in there that they want. If it were licensed like this, there would be transparency.