• Nerd02
    link
    fedilink
    English
    101 year ago

    Isn’t ActivityPub just an application protocol? To my knowledge there’s no ActivityPub inc. licensing the usage of the protocol or anything like that. A web protocol is just a series of guidelines everyone has agreed on following, you can’t attach terms and conditions to it.

    • @duncesplayed@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Indeed. Licensing usage of something is antithetical to free software culture anyway. It would violate the Free Software Foundation’s Freedom Zero, that you should never have to accept a licence to use something. (This is why free software cannot ever have a EULA, for instance)

      • Nerd02
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        TIL. Never really cared about the legal aspect of FOSS for anything other than slapping a GPL license next to anything I write but that is an interesting fact.

        • @duncesplayed@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          It’s come up in interesting cases. I can’t remember which package it was, but there was one package that was distributed under the humourous “Don’t Be Evil License”, where you could “use this software for anything that’s not evil” or something like that. This technically does not qualify as free software (freedom 0 must allow anyone to use it for evil), so Red Hat (I think it was?) had to get their lawyers to contact the developer and get him to give them an exemption to the licence, just in case one of their users used it for evil.

      • Nerd02
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Eh, it still wouldn’t be “free software” at that point. “Free” also means freedom to send your data to Meta if you want to.