Notices by cj 🇺🇸🇨🇭 (cj@mastodon.technology)

If you are a developer, know #golang, and have been wanting to make a #FLOSS #ActivityPub application for the betterment of the #Fediverse, please consider go-fed.

I will happily consult with you for free (gratis) to help you determine if go-fed is even the right choice for your needs, and would like to help ensure you feel you're on a good path.

I'd like to see more ActivityPub apps out there!

If you're not a developer, or don't know golang, and would like to, check out https://tour.golang.org

mastodon.technology is under attack from freefedifollowers dot ga, it's follower spam.

Mastodon where's your notification and incoming rate limiting?

So trying to argue the 0th pillar "freedom of use" is about specific software capabilities is mistaken. It's a gateway to the un-reconcilable "well N users demand my software have feature X, and an equal number also demand an incompatible feature Y." How could one ever satisfy the 0th pillar under this condition, and why would RMS never discuss this situation?

Perhaps because it is the wrong interpretation. :) RMS spends time at the "licensing level", not at the "what does your software do exactly" level.

Because that is the core of Software Freedom/Liberty: the right for a Person to take a software that expresses a [political] view they disagree with, obtain a copy of that software with equal capability as the distributor, modify that [political] view to be more amenable, and then redistribute it without any additional licensing burdens.

It's never about what specific views or capabilities are in the software itself. Heck, you could fork and purposefully add bugs and it is still no less Freedom respecting.

I find it incredibly surprising that many #FOSS or #FLOSS folk take the 0th pillar's "freedom of use" to mistakenly mean "freedom of usage by creating a software feature" instead of the true intended meaning: "freedom of usage under the license conditions".

Because that's what RMS has always been about: the software licenses being symmetrical in power between the distributor of software and receiver of software. It creates a level playing field in terms of what "politics" are contained in the software.

#Tusky still does not violate the #FLOSS 0th pillar, yet another explanation:

https://forum.f-droid.org/t/tusky-is-nonfree/6448/36

Watch out #Fediverse. #ActivityPub has brought some new kid on the block.

Let's get some facts down:
- No single person created the #Fediverse
- No single authority controls #ActivityPub
- #ActivityStreams allow federating data
- AS can be readily extended to have new kinds of data
- Instances are the authorities on their own data

Opinion:
We should work towards having decentralized (instances) "AS/AP Authorities" who can extend the protocol and own the extensions, while federating these extensions so other devs can discover them in a centralized manner.