Could you point to the violation please? I don’t see how users would be entitled to their modified software if they do not distribute it. Using the software is not distribution. Or is it?

That would be the case if it was under boring ol' normal GPLv3. However, it is not; it's under the AGPL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License

If they've changed it at all, they'll need to release that.

So if my users are my customers or employees, this license would make the product unusable. Maybe.

Where’s the line? The product provides my content, in the form of html/css/JavaScript/whatever. That’s technically software/copyrightable but isn’t a component of the AGPLed product.

Otherwise, I agree that the AGPL would require distribution of software mods to the product. I can’t imagine why they would modify or how the author would detect such modifications.

Sorry, but I’m still having trouble understanding just what modifications are being discussed. Nothing I’ve read yet talks about specifics. There should at least be a smoking gun, no? Otherwise, post a link to the product and you’re done.

> So if my users are my customers or employees, this license would make the product unusable.

No, not at all; you'd simply have to release the changes you make. For the purposes of this article, your 'users' are anyone who interacts with the software.

> Sorry, but I’m still having trouble understanding just what modifications are being discussed. Nothing I’ve read yet talks about specifics.

Mentioned in the article; they've been removing references to Mastodon from Mastodon. Which you are allowed to do, but at that point you have to release any changes you've made.

But from where? Headers? Embedded graphic?

Let me ask another way. Did these modifications require a recompile? Pulling a word out of a config file would not constitute a “modification to the software”, merely use as intended.

> Let me ask another way. Did these modifications require a recompile? Pulling a word out of a config file would not constitute a “modification to the software”, merely use as intended.

Actually, it might. Per section 1:

> The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities.

Mastodon is written in Ruby, and large Ruby programs (particularly Rails) usually use Ruby DSLs for configuration. It's very plausible that changes to the config would trigger the AGPL.

So technically this could mean that every person that has launched a mastadon instance needs to make a copy and release to the world our config files, passwords, DB users and other changes for the world to see? Or we are all in violation of making changes and not re-releasing them? Does it spell out how we need to release them, like upon request via email or have a link to a package via main page or something?

Your passwords and databases are probably not considered code, whereas a DSL that happens to be used for configuration would be.

But let's be clear: copyright holders get to decide when they enforce their copyrights. They aren't beholden to enforcement the way that trademark holders are. It's perfectly reasonable and legally consistent for a copyright holder to prioritize egregious violations (like TRUTH's) while ignoring smaller ones (like Joe Schmoe forgetting to publish his tuning changes).

That not withstanding, copyright applies only to that which is copyrightable. One may not express rights they do not have.

Portions modified may not be subject to any form of copyright protection if the original code and/or modifications are purely functional. Purely functional expressions that lack any creative element are not copyrightable to begin with.

> Portions modified may not be subject to any form of copyright protection if the original code and/or modifications are purely functional. Purely functional expressions that lack any creative element are not copyrightable to begin with.

This is a more abstract observation than is perhaps relevant to the situation at hand, which involves a group of people modifying software components that the current body of software copyright law would not consider "purely functional."

You want a reskinned mastodon with winking Trump and MAGA plastered all over it that badly?

AGPL, which Mastodon is licensed under, was created to address exactly the loophole you've identified.

Under the AGPL, modified forms of the software that are used to provide user services must be distributed under the same terms.

>the incompetence

i mean let's be real who is ever going to work for this thing, the amount of qualified engineers who are going to sign up for Trump's Mastodon media clone you can probably count on one hand.

Which might arguably be the biggest problem all of these companies are going to have, how are these people ever going to find actual developers

There is a massive pool of engineers that if payed FAANG*1.1 salary would work on anything. As long as they set salaries correctly they will not have any issues recruiting talent.

You also seriously underestimate number of people pissed off about having spout the latest woke tropes to continue being employed at FAANG, those will go for much lower rate.

It feels like they outsourced this, or hired the people willing to do the work most cheaply. More likely they hired the people in their network who had any experience in this space and hoped for the best (Bill was director of engineering for a regional bank? He knows people, right?).

I don't doubt there would be engineers willing to work on this if 1) the pay was right 2) the culture was right. Do they have the executives in place who know how to set those two things to attract the best engineers? All signs point to no.

What? Half of the country voted for this guy. That's a pretty large pool of people to pull from for future employees.

> Half of the country voted for this guy.

Significantly less than half of the significantly less than half of the the country that voted at all voted for this guy.

Or, an alternate phrasing, significantly less than half the slightly more than half of eligible voters that actually voted at all voted for this guy.

But, in any case, nowhere near half of the country voted for him.

I'm not sure half of them would want to _work_ for him, though. He doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation as an employer.

Seems like the type of person to do something just for the resume pad or the chance of working with rather than working for. Any sane person knows that what ever agreement you start with will 100% be renegotiated later, and paid in full never.

Only ~60% of eligible US voters voted in 2016 and 2020, Trump lost the popular vote both times, "half of the country" did not vote for him.

74+ million did which worked out to 46.9%. That's pretty close to 50% for discussion purposes. That's a large pool of potential employees.

That's about 22.5% of the country, not half.

Might I interest you in a course on statistics and how smaller samplings can be used to extrapolate larger sets?

Then the correct statement would be "half the country would've voted for this guy, based on the number of people who did vote".

> 74+ million did which worked out to 46.9%.

Not of the country it didn't.

I guarantee you there are plenty of smart, capable, clever engineers willing (and likely motivated by sincerer personal belief) to work on Trump's Mastodon media clone.

I'm not one of them, but I also put active effort into not letting my social spheres from taint my view of "the other"'s ability too much.

I'm certain you're right that there are a lot of talented engineers with political philosophies all over the spectrum, many of whom I would whole-heartedly disagree with.

However, Trump and the folks in his immediate circle seem to drive away competence through a special combination of malice, selfishness, pettiness, projection, and short-sightedness that boggles the mind. Set aside ideology for a minute; it seems like not paying the bills is standard procedure for their organization, and I don't know who would stand for it regardless of their ideology.

Absolutely, the Truth platform will likely fail due to inept management, legal troubles, learning that moderation is actually a hard problem, etc.

I just want GGP to know that there are plenty of smart people willing to work on such a project (assuming they get paid) - and I want to combat this idea that the "other side" is just a bunch of bumbling bozos who don't know the difference between a bit and a byte.

There's likely also a small number of people who would work on this just because they believe in Trump's ideology, and would like to see Truth exist more than they'd like to get paid on a regular basis.

There are very few of Trump's allies that would ever work for him, either as an employee or a contractor. They can see his modus operandi clear as day.

And yet somehow there are always suckers that he can convince to do his shit for free. Of course there is a promise of payment, but the check never arrives.